Laura anthes' thesis

BA.MMC.–BACHELORTHESISSUPERVISOR–SARAHAMIDALWAN

STUDENTNUMBER301114TOTALCHARACTERS(WITHOUTSPACES):54.247

1OF38

FASHIONCO‐BRANDING

ACASESTUDYOFSUCCESSFULCO‐BRANDINGFACTORS

FROMASOCIALSCIENCEPERSPECTIVE

Author:LauraAnthes10

Supervisor:SaraHamidAlwan

BAinMarketingandManagementCommunication

DepartmentofBusinessCommunication



2OF38

20

Abstract

Purpose–Thepurposeofthisthesisistofindtheformulaforsuccessfulfashionco‐branding

strategies,aswellastoanalyseco‐brandingmotivationsandadvantages,mentionitsdrawbacks,

andputthesetheoriesintoperspectivewithinareal‐lifeco‐brandingcase.

Methodology–Theresearchofthisthesiswillbebasedonthesocialsciencesapproachasthereare

limitedempiricalstudiesconcerningco‐branding.Scholar’stheorieswillbecomplementedwithdata

fromconsumerreportsandconsumerbehaviouranalysis.

Findings–Thethesisprovidesthecharacteristicsforsuccessfulco‐brandingmodelasaconceptual30

frameworktodrawupon.Theintentionistoguideanycompanythroughtheirfirststepswhen

embracingco‐brandingaimingforsuccessfuloutcomes.Thefindingsincludeadditionalfactorsfor

successfulco‐brandingthatwerenotdiscovereduntilthemodel’sapplicationtoH&M’scases.

Researchlimitations/practicalimplications–Thisthesishasfoundusefulguidelinesforbrand

managerstouseintheco‐brandingprocess.However,furtherempiricalresearchinconsumer

behaviourisrecommended.

Originality/value–Thevalueofthisthesisisthatthemodelcreatedhasbeenputintoperspective

withreal‐lifeco‐brandingcases.Thus,itsfindingsintroduceapracticalapproachinco‐branding’s

literature.



3OF38

40

TableofContents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 41.1.MOTIVATION............................................................................................................................................................... 41.2.PROBLEMSTATEMENT.......................................................................................................................................... 51.3.LITERATUREREVIEW............................................................................................................................................. 51.4.METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................................................................... 71.4.1.HERMENEUTICS .....................................................................................................................................................7

1.5.DELIMITATIONS ........................................................................................................................................................ 850

1.6.STRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.CONTEXTUALFRAMEWORK........................................................................................................ 92.1.FASHIONCONSUMERBEHAVIOUR................................................................................................................... 92.1.1.THEHISTORYOFCONSUMERBEHAVIOUR................................................................................................92.1.2.WHATDRIVESFASHIONCONSUMERS? .................................................................................................... 102.1.3.CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................................... 13

3.WHATDEFINESCO‐BRANDINGSTRATEGIES? ............................................................................ 143.1.THEHISTORYOFCO‐BRANDING .................................................................................................................... 143.2.MOTIVATIONFORCO‐BRANDING.................................................................................................................. 163.3.DRAWBACKSOFCO‐BRANDING ..................................................................................................................... 1960

3.4.MODELFORCO‐BRANDING............................................................................................................................... 213.5.CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................ 25

4.CASEANALYSIS......................................................................................................................... 264.1.HISTORYOFH&M................................................................................................................................................... 264.2.H&M’sCO‐BRANDINGCASESANALYSISANDDISCUSSION................................................................ 284.3.CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................................ 32

5.CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 33

6.FUTURERESEARCH ................................................................................................................... 34

7.BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 36

8.APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 3870



4OF38

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1.MOTIVATION

“Brandsarejudgedbythecompanytheykeep”1,MichelleGreenwald.

Greenwald’squotesumsuphowcarefulbrandsneedtobewhenimplementingco‐branding

strategies.Whenfindingaco‐brandingpartnercompaniesshouldbeawarethattowhomtheyare

relatedwithreflectsdirectlyonthem(Greenwald,2011).Consequently,consumerswilljudgeto

someextendabrandwiththesamestandardsastheyjudgetheirco‐brandingpartner.Inevitably,80

somequalitiesofoneofthebrandswillbeimprintedontheotherandviceversa.Whenthisoccurs,

itmayeitherhavepositiveornegativeassociationoutcomes,orboth.Thusthiscanaffectthebrand

inmanyways.However,theseassociationoutcomesaredifficulttopredict.

ScholarssuchasAaker(1990)andKeller(2012)statethattobuildabrandmanycommunication

effortsarenecessary.However,todestroyitonesinglemisstepcanbeenough.Consequently,co‐

brandingisnotonlyastrategyaboutsalesbutitisalsoaboutstrategiccorporatecommunication.

Companiesapplybrandingandco‐brandingstrategiesinordertocommunicatetheirdesiredbrand’s

imagetotheircustomersandpositionthemselvesdifferentiatedfromotherbrands.

Thisthesisauthorbelievesthatco‐brandingwithahighfashiondesignercannotonlyboost

companies’salesbutalsoincreasetheirwebsitetraffic,socialmediafollowers,mediaattention,and90

reinforcebrandequity.Inotherwords,ifdonewell,thesestrategicpartnershipscanachieveresults

thatwillnotonlyreinforcetheirbrands’equitybutalsoincreasegeneralbrandawareness.Agood

co‐brandingstrategycansaymoreaboutabrandthanmanycommunicationexperts’effortsto

communicatethebrand’svalues.

Sincethepastdecade,therehasbeenanincreasingamountofco‐brandingcasesbetweendifferent

massfashionretailersandluxuryfashiondesigners,butlittleresearchaddressingthisspecific

strategy.Hence,itappearsthenecessitytoattempttofindthefirstschemaofwhatcouldformlater

aconceptualframework–inordertohelpresearchestostudyco‐brandingcases,andhelp

companiestoimplementsuccessfulstrategies.

99

1http://www.inc.com/michelle‐greenwald/innovative‐co‐branding‐and‐creative‐partnerships.html



5OF38

Asmorethan90%ofco‐brandingcasesfailinreallife(Miller,2010;Lindstrom,2002),thepurposeof100

thisthesisistoanalyseco‐brandingmotivations,explainitsadvantagesanddrawbacks,aswellasto

contrastrecentmodelsofco‐brandingpracticewithareal‐lifebusinesscaseinordertoputthese

theoriesintoperspective.

Inaddition,itfeelsindispensabletoincludeconsumerbehaviourresearch,asitisoneofthemain

areasofstudyofmarketing–beingco‐brandingavariantofbrandingandbrandingapartof

marketing.Consumerbehaviourresearchisrelevanttothisthesisbecauseitwillhelptounderstand

theopinionoftheconsumersaboutco‐brandingandtheirroleintherecentsuccessofthisfashion

trend.

1.2.PROBLEMSTATEMENT110

Whatdefinesasuccessfulcollaborationinfashionco‐branding?

Tworesearchquestionswillattempttoanswertheoverallproblemstatement:

1 Whatdrivescompaniestoco‐branding?

2 WhichcharacteristicsdoH&M’scollaborationshave?

1.3.LITERATUREREVIEW

MichaelSolomon

MichaelSolomon,Ph.D.,hasbeeninvestigatingthecomplexrelationshipbetweenmarketing

strategiesandconsumers'preferences.HereceivedtheCuttySarkMen'sFashionAwardforhis

researchonthepsychologicalaspectsofclothing.Dr.Solomon2said,“Peopledon'tbuythings120

becauseofwhattheydo;theybuythingsbecauseofwhattheymean”3.

121

2https://michaelsolomon.wordpress.com/about/3http://www.sju.edu/news/experts/marketing/solomon.html



6OF38

Histheorieswillhelpthisthesistoexplorefashionconsumerbehaviourinrelationwithco‐branding,

andbetterunderstandtrendsasareflectionofconsumerdemand.

UcheOkonkwo

AnotherauthorthisthesistakesintoconsiderationisUcheOkonkwo4,directorofLuxeE.t.cbusiness

strategyconsultancycompany.OkonkwoisaDoctoratecandidateatEcoleSuperieurdeCommerce,

Rennes,France.Shealsohasextensivecross‐sectorexperienceinluxurygoodsmanagementand

brandingstrategies.

Herbookonluxuryfashionbrandingprovidesvaluableinsightintotheluxuryconsumerbehaviour.

Herworkisrelevantforthisthesissincethisthesisisbasedonfashionco‐brandingbetweenfast130

fashionbrandsandhighfashiondesigners.Theboundariesbetweenfastfashionandluxuryfashion

canbeblurredthus,someknowledgeofluxuryfashionconsumerbehaviourwillberequired.

SolomonandOkonkwo’smethodologycanbeconsideredfromthephilosophicalhermeneuticspoint

ofview–asconsumerbehaviourstudiesrequirerecreatingwhatisinconsumers’mindsand

understandingthementalprocessesthatconsumersgothroughinordertoarrivetoadecision.The

selectionofthesetwoauthorsisnotarbitrary,asthisthesismainmethodologyisalsothe

philosophicalhermeneutics.

BerndHelmig,Jan‐AlexanderHuber&PeterS.H.Leeflang

BerndHelmigisprofessor,chairandheadoftheDepartmentforBusinessAdministration,Public&

NonprofitManagementattheUniversityofMannheim,Germany.Hiscolleague,Jan‐Alexander140

Huber5worksinGlobalHeadCorporateDevelopmentandisheadofprogramoffice

"Restructuring"atHSHNordbank.Theirothercolleague,PeterS.H.Leeflang6isprofessorof

marketingattheUniversityofGroningen,TheNetherlands;andguestprofessoratdifferent

universities.

Togethertheywroteanarticle(2008),whichmainpurposewastodiscussanddevelopatheoretical

modelthatcouldhelpstrategiststoimplementco‐brandingwithsuccess.Theysuggesthowever

146

4http://www.speakersacademy.eu/speakers/uche‐okonkwo5http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dr‐jan‐alexander‐huber/10/48/aa76http://www.rug.nl/staff/p.s.h.leeflang/CVMepa.pdf



7OF38

furtheranalysesbasedonempiricalresearch,leavingopensomequestionsregardingfitdimensions

ornewalternatives.

AlthoughHelmig’setal.(2008)modelisaresultfromcriticalrationalistmethodology,itsrelevance

forco‐brandingstudiescouldnotbeoverlooked.150

Euromonitor&Datamonitormarketreports

Duetothelittlepreviousempiricalresearchintheco‐brandingfield,differentmarketreportswillbe

usedthroughoutthisthesisasdatatocontrastwithscholars’theoriesinordertoaccomplisha

betteroverviewoftheactualmarketsituation.

EventhoughsomeEuromonitorreportsreflectcurrenttrendsfromacriticalrationalistpointofview

–contrastingannualreportsorfinancialresults–,manyofthemtrytounderstandthereasonof

currentsituationsfromthephilosophicalhermeneuticspointofview.

1.4.METHODOLOGY

1.4.1.HERMENEUTICS160

Hermeneuticsisasocialphilosophyfromthefieldofthesocialsciences.Gadamer(1975)wasoneof

itsmostprominentacademics.Hebelievedthatinordertoreachunderstandingscholars’should

operatewithinahermeneuticcircle(Skinner,1986;p.24).

Theobjectiveofthisthesisistoachieveunderstandingofconsumerbehaviourthroughtheanalysis

ofrelevantliteratureandreports.Thus,theusageofthehermeneuticcirclewillhelptointerpretall

theresultsdrawninthefollowingchapters,andconsequentlyfindvalidhypotheses.Inotherwords,

theuseofthehermeneuticcirclewillhelpthisthesistounderstandthemeaningofco‐branding

fromtheeyeoftheconsumerandconsequentlyfindthehypothesesthatmayformapractical

conceptualframeworkforacademicsandcompanies.

170



8OF38

1.5.DELIMITATIONS

Thisthesisisacommunicationpaperbasedonthefieldofintegratedmarketingcommunication

(IMC)inwhichbrandingisanimportantfactor.Overthepastyears,co‐brandinghasbeenincreasing

inpopularityamongstmarketersandbrandsyetco‐brandingisstillanemergingfieldinside

branding.Consequently,thisthesishaschosentofocusonco‐brandingasitsmainsubject.

Asmentionedpreviously,therearelimitedstudiesconcerningco‐branding.Thereisasmallamount

ofscholarsthathavedonequantitativeandqualitativeresearchonthefield.Likewise,thereisnota

conceptualframeworkoronebestpracticetofollowbyacompanytobesuccessfulinco‐branding.

Therefore,thisthesiswillnottakeatruenaturalscienceapproach,asitseemsunrealisticatthe

moment–duetotheresourcesathand.Thus,theresearchofthisthesiswillbebasedonthesocial180

sciences,asoneofthisthesis’aimsistounderstandthebenefitsofco‐branding.

Anotherfacttohighlightisthatdespiteanalysingconsumerbehaviour,thisthesisaimistoanalyse

co‐brandingfromthecompanies’perspective,theimplicationsthatco‐brandingmighthaveforboth

oftheinvolvedbrands,andwhetheraco‐brandingstrategycouldpossiblyenhanceordecreasetheir

imageintheeyeoftheconsumer.

Manyofthecompaniesdonothavepublicannualreportshencenotallmarketdataisavailable.

H&Mhasbeenchosenasthespecificcasebecauseitsreportsarepublicandhenceitsfinancial

results.

Thisthesisisnotgoingtoanalysecelebritycollaborationsorendorsements,oranyother

collaborationthatisnotwithinthefashionindustry.190

1.6.STRUCTURE

Tobeginwith,consumersandtheirbehaviourwillbeanalysedinordertounderstandthefactors

thatdrivethem–becauseforcompaniestosucceedtheymustunderstandconsumerbehaviour.

Afterwards,whatdefinesanddrivesco‐brandingstrategieswillbeexplained.

Subsequently,Helmig’setal.(2008)modelwillbecontrastedwithotherscholars’theoriesinorder

tooutlinethemostimportantpoints.



9OF38

Finally,H&M’scasewillbepresentedandanalysedincontrastwiththepreviouslydefinedmodel.As

aresult,thereistrusttodeterminewhatdefinessuccessinfashionco‐brandingandtheguidelines

necessarytoaccomplishit.200

2.CONTEXTUALFRAMEWORK

Thepurposeofthischapteristounderstandwhatdrivesconsumerstoco‐branding,whatfactors

drivecompaniestoco‐branding,andhowcanfashioncompaniesusethisknowledgetobecome

successful.

2.1.FASHIONCONSUMERBEHAVIOUR

Thepurposeofthefollowingchapteristotrytoexplainwhyandhowfashionconsumerbehaviour

haspropitiatedthepopularityofco‐brandingstrategiesamongstfashionbrands.

Firstly,thehistoryofconsumerbehaviourandthebasicstepsintheconsumerdecision‐making210

processwillbeoutlined.Secondly,theactualfashionconsumerbehaviourpanoramaandtrendswill

beanalysed.Andthirdly,abriefconclusionrelatingconsumerbehaviourtoco‐brandingpreparing

thereaderforthefurtherdevelopmentofthisthesis.

2.1.1.THEHISTORYOFCONSUMERBEHAVIOUR

Forcompaniestosucceedtheymustunderstandconsumersandtheirbehaviour.Theobjectiveof

consumerbehaviourstudiesistounderstandhowconsumersmakepurchasedecisionstosatisfy

needsanddesires(Solomonetal.,2002;p.5).

Therearefivestepsinconsumerdecision‐makingprocessesandmarketershavelearnedhowto

influenceeachstage(Solomon,2002):220



10OF38

Inthefieldoffashionconsumerbehaviour,forexampletheproblemrecognitionphaseusuallyisan

opportunityrecognition,whichismorerelatedwithdesiresthanwithneeds–apersonmaynotneed

newclothesbuttheystillwanttobuynewgarments(Solomon,2002;p.236‐9).Marketershave

developednewstrategiestotriggerdesire–becausedesireunlikeneedsneverends–beingco‐

brandingoneofthemostusednowadays.

Fashionco‐brandingaimstocreateashortcutinconsumers’memoriesandmakethepre‐purchase

decisioneasierbyassociationwiththeluxurybrand.Peopledonotneedmoreclothesbutthe

exclusivityofthecollaboration,thelimitededition,andthethoughtofitbeingaonceinalifetime

opportunitygeneratethedesiretobuy.Suddenly,theinformationsearchandtheevaluationof230

alternativesphasesbecomeirrelevantandtheconsumer’smindgoesdirectlytotheproductchoice

phase.Beliefslikeabettervalue‐for‐the‐priceortheonceinalifetimeopportunityconstitute

consumers’argumentstosatisfytheirdesires(ibid).

2.1.2.WHATDRIVESFASHIONCONSUMERS?

Okonkwo(2007)explainshowthe21stCenturyhaswitnessedfundamentalchangesinconsumer

behaviour.

Forthelasttwodecades,anewsocialclass,thewealthymiddleclass,hasraisedandwithitan

increaseonthedemandofluxuryfashion.Becauseofthedemandmanyyoungluxurybrandswere

born,increasingthelistofbrandstochoosefrom.Anotherfactorthathasinfluencedthe240

widespreadofluxuryfashionhasbeentheInternet.Today’sconsumersaresmarterandtheInternet

offersthemanunlimitedsourceofinformation.Fashionconsumersarehighlyinvolvedinthe

consumptionprocessresearchingtheInternettoseekinformationabouttheproductsinorderto



11OF38

makeadecision.Theyarefashionistas7,whichmeansthattheyknowaboutbrandsandtrends,and

theyarenotafraidofmixingluxuryfashionwithmassfashionbrands.Asaresult,theboundaries

betweenluxuryfashionandmassfashionareweakernowadays.Thenewterm“thedemocratisation

ofluxury”byitsowndefinitionexplainswhy(Solomonetal.,2002;p.93‐96,103‐5,228).

Massfashionbrandshavenoticedtheweakenedboundariesand,haveadaptertheirmarketing

strategiesthereafter.Okonkwo(2007)mentionsthosestrategiesinherbook,withinthemitshould

bepointedoutthelimited‐editionstrategy(p.229).However,limitededitionsappearnottobe250

enoughthesedaysandmassfashionbrandsneedmoretoattractthesavvyconsumer.Itseemsthat

theyhavefoundthesolutioninco‐branding.NowadaystheInternetandsocialmediaarealso

changingthebasisofmarketingandcommunication.

TheInternethaspropitiatedtheexposureofluxurybrandstotheaveragemiddleclass(Okonkwo,

2007;p.233).Beforeluxurygoodswereinaccessibletomostpeople.However,nowevenifmostof

theconsumerscannotaffordtobuyluxurybrandstheyarestillexposedtothem–propitiating

desire.Consequently,thishasledtoademandonmassluxuryfashionbytheaveragemiddleclass,

seekingtosatisfytheirdesireswithaffordableluxuryfashion(Okonkwo,2007;p.93‐96,99,102,

226‐7).Itisnecessarytohighlightthatwithinthisgroupofconsumers,youngstersandyoung

professionalsformagreatproportion.Thisthesiswillfocusontheconsumerbehaviourofthis260

segmentastheyshopmoreoftenthanothersegmentgroupsandtheyaretheheaviestbuyersof

fashionforwardgarments8(Yinyin,2010;p.32).So,consideringthatthemaintargetaudienceoffast

fashionbrandsareyoungstersandyoungadultsfromtheageof13to26,itisnecessaryto

understandtheirneeds(ibid,p.12).

Youngstersandyoungadultshavelimitedresourcesandcannotpaytheextrapricethatluxury

brandsrequire.Therefore,theychoosetobuyfastfashionbrands,likeH&MandZara,withinthe

massfashionmarketbecausetheyarecheap,trendyand“goodlooking”(Yinyin,2010;p.13,15).

Yinyin(2010)statesinherstudythatfastfashionconsumptiondeclinesaftertheageof31.Thismay

beduetotheshiftfromfastfashionbrandstomasstigeorevenhigher‐levelbrandsastheirsalaries

increase(p.11).270

270

7http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fashionista8http://www.holijoli.com/fashion‐and‐apparel‐purchase‐outlook‐and‐consumer‐segments‐2010/



12OF38

Youngstersandyoungadultsareespeciallysensibletotrendsandtheinfluenceofopinionleaders.

Theyareusuallyhighself‐monitors–whichmeansthattheyareveryconcernedaboutwhatothers

thinkaboutthem(Gass&Seiter,2011).Theydresstoexpressthemselvesneedingtoreinforcetheir

imagethroughbrands,andfantasisingaboutachievingpopularityliketheiridols,opinionleadersor

celebrities–thustheirconsumptionismainlyhedonic(Solomonetal.,2002;p.93‐6).Currently,

younggirlsarelookinguptoitgirls.

TheInternethascreatednewopinionleadersandreferencegroups,whichareresponsibleforsome

brands’actualpopularity.Thetermitgirlreferstoyounggirlsthatarerelatedsomehowwiththe

fashion,cinemaorartworlds9.Theyareusuallywealthyandgetphotographedbythemedia.Their

tasteinclothesandpopularityspreadsfastthroughouttheInternet.Theseitgirlsforman280

aspirationalreferencegroup,makingtheaspirationalshopperdesiretodresslikethem.One

examplewasthecollaborationofKateMossforTopshop.Inaddition,socialmedialikeFacebookor

onlinepublishingserviceslikeBloggerorLookbook10fuelthesedesiresevenmore(ibid).

Fashioncompanieshaveusedtheneedsanddesiresoftheirtargetaudiencestocaptivatetheir

attention.

Fastfashionbrandsandfastfashioncollaborationshavebeenthemostresourcefulstrategiesto

attractyoungadultsastheycannotaffordtobuytheluxurybrandstheiraspirationalreference

groupswear.Inthecaseofcollaborations,theassociationofluxuryfashiondesignerswithfast

fashionbrandspropitiatesstimulustobuy–itisamethodofconditioning.Fastfashionbrandswant

theirtargetaudiencetofeelthatcollaborationsaretheclosestastheycangettoattainwhattheir290

aspirationalreferencegroupswear.Whenafastfashionbrandisassociatedwithaluxuryfashion

branditaffectstheformer’sbrandequityandqualityperceptionpositively.Forexample,whenH&M

releasesimagesoftheluxurydesignerhimselfsewingH&M’sclothes,theyarecreatingperception

orschemasaboutthequalityoftheclothes–conveyingsomepropertiesoftheluxuryfashion

designertothefastfashionbrand,asexclusivityandlimited‐editions.

Iffastfashionwasalreadypopularamongstitstargetaudience,duringtherecessionithasbecome

evenmorepopularwithinconsumersmainlyinUSandinEurope,anditmaycontinuebeingin‐

demandforseveralyears.However,despitefastfashion’spopularity,inUStherehasbeenashift298

9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_girl10http://lookbook.nu/



13OF38

towardsvalueshoppingatthebeginningoftheendoftherecession–consumersareseekingquality.

Likewise,inEasternEuropeconsumersarestartingtospendmore,andin2010qualitywasvalued300

overquantity.Forexample,theRusianmarkethasseenagrowthinluxuryandpremiumbrands

demand.ThesameconsumertrendwasnoticedalsoinLatinAmerica,mainlyBrazil.Cheap‐buys

satisfiedconsumers’necessitiesintherecessionbutitisuncertainifconsumerswillremainsatisfied

withlowqualityaftertherecession(SeeAppendix1).

Fastfashionmaystillrunforyearsbutthereisagrowingtrendonvalueandpremiumshopping,

mostlyincountrieswheretheincomesarerising.Therefore,fastfashionbrandsaretryingtomeet

theseemergingtrends.Theirintentionistoofferconsumers,throughtheircollaborationsand

specialeditions,valueanddesignatrelativelylowprices.Atthesametime,theycontinuekeeping

theirfastfashionessence–highturnoveroftrendygarments,andcheapprices.Inconclusion,both

consumersaresatisfied,theconsumerthatwantsqualityanddesign,andtheconsumerthatwants310

cheapandtrendygarments.

Higher‐levelmassfashionbrandscalledmasstigehavealsoembracedtheco‐brandingtrendinorder

tocompetewiththefastfashionmarket.BrandslikeHunterorAcnehavecollaboratedwithJimmy

ChooandLanvin,respectively.Intheircase,theyaretryingtofulfiltheneedsofhigher‐status

consumersthatwantfastforwarddesignswithaffordableprices,andthatmayhavespentsomeof

theirbudgetintendedtomasstigebrandsinfastfashioncollaborationswithluxurydesigners.

2.1.3.CONCLUSION

Co‐brandinghasbeenthelateststrategyofmassfashionbrandstoattractthesavvyconsumer.

Collaborationsareinnovativeandhavegivenanewmeaningtofashion.Therefore,itwillbe320

interestingtostudytheiringredientsforsuccessandunderstandhowsomecollaborationsare

successfulwhileothersarenot.

Thestudyofco‐brandingwillalsothrowsomelighttothefutureofco‐branding,sinceconsumer

behaviourfluctuatestogetherwithsocietythus,itisunknownforhowlongthesecollaborationswill

continueattractingconsumers.



14OF38

3.WHATDEFINESCO‐BRANDINGSTRATEGIES?

Thepurposeofthischapteristounderstandwhatdefinesanddrivesco‐branding,aswellastodraw

upondifferentscholars’theoriesinordertodefinethefirstdraftofwhatcouldbeco‐branding’s

conceptualframework.330

Thischapterwillfirst,brieflyanalysethehistoryofco‐brandinganddefinedifferentco‐branding

categories.Second,analysethemotivesoffashioncompaniestoco‐brandalongwithitsadvantages.

Third,pointoutthedrawbacksofco‐branding.Andfourth,delineateamodelforsuccessfulco‐

brandingbasedonHelmig’setal.(2008)modeltogetherwithconsiderationsderivedfromthisand

thepreviouschapter2,incombinationwithotherscholars’theories.

3.1.THEHISTORYOFCO‐BRANDING

Okonkwo(2007)definesco‐brandingasthestrategythattwocompaniesadoptwhentheypairtheir

namesandresourcestolaunchanewproduct(p.168).

Thebelieveisthatthefirstcaseofco‐brandingoccurredin1959,whenPierreCardinlauncheda340

readytowearcollectionforFrenchdepartmentstorePrintemps11(ibid).Atthattime,the

collaborationwasoutrageousforsomepeople,buttimeschangeandconsumerattitudesdoaswell.

Thephenomenonofco‐brandingstartedtobeusualaroundthemid1980’sandincreasedits

popularityduringthelate90’s12.Nowadaysdaysrarelypassbywithoutanewco‐branding

announcementwithinanyindustry.

Therearedifferentformsofcollaborationswithindifferentindustries(SooKyoungetal.,2010;p.6).

Thefirstarecalledinter‐industrialcollaborations,whichareco‐brandingcasesbetweentwo

differentbrandspertainingtodifferentmarketsectors.Forexample,in1997,Lexuslauncheda

limited"CoachEdition"LS400incollaborationwithAmericanaccessoriesmanufacturerCoach13.

Andthesecondaretheintra‐industrialcollaborations,whichareco‐brandingcasesbetweentwo350

differentbrandspertainingtothesamemarketsector.Theyhavebecomeincreasinglymorepopular

351

11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Cardin12http://www.brighthub.com/office/entrepreneurs/articles/46418.aspx13http://trendwatching.com/trends/BRANDED_BRANDS.htm



15OF38

withinthefashionworldwiththelaunchofhighprofiledesignercollaborationsandthehelpof

socialmedia.Forexample,since2004thefashionindustryhasseenmanynewemergingco‐

brandingallianceslikeMaryKatrantzouforTopshop,StellaMcCartneyorValentinoforGAP,Missoni

orJasonWuforTarget,KarlLagerlfeldorMarniforH&M,DVFforGAP14,OpeningCeremonyand

manydesigners15,etcetera.However,thisisnoteventhebeginning.Ontheonehand,in2012new

collaborationswillflourish,likeAltuzarraforJ.Crew,andotherlong‐termcollaborationswill

continue,likeTheyskensforTheoryorStellaMcCartneyforAdidas.However,ontheotherhand

othercollaborationsareabouttoseetheirend.Forexample,Targethasannouncedthattheyare

notgoingtocontinuetheirco‐brandingstrategywithluxuryfashiondesignersbutinsteadtheywill360

starttosponsorsmallU.S.boutiques16.Thereasonsforthischangeofstrategymaybemany,but

onemightbetheshiftoftheirconsumers’latentdemands.

Apartfromthetwodifferentformsofcollaborationswithinindustries,therearedifferentformsof

collaborationbetweenmassfashionbrands,luxuryfashionbrands,luxuryfashiondesignersor

youngdesigners,whichdifferontheirmotivations:

366

14http://www.dvf.com/inside/Article/inside‐dvf‐acticles/dvf‐hearts‐gap15http://www.blackbookmag.com/fashioneer‐1.110/opening‐ceremony‐collaboration‐sluts‐1.3838516http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article‐2087439/Target‐moves‐away‐high‐end‐fashion‐collaborations‐support‐small‐

U‐S‐boutiques.html

Figure1.Fashionco‐brandingcases



16OF38

3.2.MOTIVATIONFORCO‐BRANDING

Co‐brandinghasseenmorethana40%annualgrowthsincethelastdecade.Brandsmayembrace

co‐brandingforvariousreasons,dependingonwhethertheyareluxurybrandsormass‐market

brands(Chang2008,p.498).However,onethingisclear,thebenefitsofco‐branding–canbe370

substantialforanybrand.Thefollowingparagraphswillanalyseandsuggestmotivationalgroundfor

differentsortsofbrandstoco‐brandandtheadvantageshereof.Chosenscholars’theoriesand

researchreportsareincludedtosupporttheseconsiderations,alongwiththeknowledgeacquiredin

chapter2.

Bothbrands’motivations

Therearecommonmotivationsforco‐brandingregardlessofthestatusofthebrandsinvolved.

Thefirstmotiveisthedesiretoreinforcebrandequity(Geylanietal.2008,p.730;Chang2008,p.

498).

Aaker(2010)explainsthatco‐brandingbringstheadvantagesofbrandextensionbutwithlessrisk

andmorevisibility(p.298).Hedefinesbrandequityas:380

thesetofassets(andliabilities)linkedtoabrand’snameandsymbolthataddsto(or

subtractsfrom)thevalueprovidedbyaproductorservicetoafirmand/orthatfirm’s

customers(p.7).

Washburnetal.(2000)provedthatco‐brandingimprovesconsumers’opinionsofbrandequity–

whethertheconstituentbrandshadhigh‐equityorlow,alwayswhenpositiveopinionsoccurred

afterproducttrial(p.600).Brandswanttoreinforcecustomer‐basedbrandequitybecausewhen

thishappens,consumersrespondfavourablytothetotalofabrand’squalities,identifythebrand

asareflectionoftheirmainpreferencesandconsequentlybuytheproductandcommittothe

brand–creatingcompetitivepositionadvantage.

Furthermore,themainobjectiveofbrandequityistocreatebrandvalue.Theformerisrelatedto390

consumerbehaviour,butthelattertofinancialgains.Subsequently,brandequitycanresultin

financialsuccess.

Consequently,thesecondmotiveofco‐brandingisfinancialsuccess(Geylanietal.2008,p.730;

Chang2008,p.498).Apartfromallthebenefitsforthebrand,collaborationsmayleadtoan



17OF38

increaseinsales,whichisoneofthemainfinancialobjectivesofeverycompanyfromasimplistic

pointofview.

Thethirdmotiveofcompaniesforco‐brandingistoobtainoperationalbenefits(ibid).Companies

canlearnfromtheirco‐brandingpartners,usetheirresourcesontheirbehalfandapplytheacquired

knowledgeinthefuture.Whenco‐branding,bothcompaniescanlearnandprofitfromeachother.

Forexample,theluxurybrandmayusethefastfashionbrandchainofretailerstodistributetheir400

productandlearnabouttheirbusinessmodel,whilethefastfashionbrandmayusetheluxury

designercustomerbasetoattractnewconsumers.

Uggla(2006)statesthatco‐brandingproductsreinforcebrandvaluesandreachnewtargetgroups

(p.786).Thus,thefourthmotiveofcompaniesforco‐brandingisthedesiretoaccessnewmarkets,

engagingwithanewconsumerbase,respondingnewconsumerneeds–asseeninchapter2.

Fifthandfinally,nowadaysco‐brandingreceivessubstantialmediaattention,whichcanbe

translatedintoconsiderableamountsoffreepublicity.Manymarketers17statethatthisisoneofthe

underlyingmotivesforco‐branding,andthatcollaborationsareastrategybasicallytogetthe

attentionfromthepublicandthemedia–togeneratebuzz.

Massfashionbrands’motivations410

Therearemotivationsmoreinherenttomassfashionbrandsbecauseluxurybrandsmaynotneedto

enhancethesecharacteristics(Geylanietal.2008,p.730;Chang2008,p.498).

First,Raoetal.(1999)statedthatthecombinationoftwobrandsinaco‐brandingstrategydeliversa

higherqualityperceptionaboutthebrandsandtheproductthaniftheproductwassinglebranded

(Helmigetal.,2008;p.360).Thisisbecauseconsumersjudgethenewproductinbaseofits

constituentbrandshencetheirbrandequity(Washburnetal.,2000;p.593).So,theassociationof

massfashionbrandswithluxuryfashiondesignersbringscredibilitytothemassfashionbrand–

indicatingqualityandincreasingconsumer‐perceivedvalue.Asaconsequence,thisassociation

possiblywillalsoattractnewcustomersthatmaynothavebeenpurchasersofthemassfashion

brand–soiftheylikewhatthemassfashionretailerhastooffertheymaycomebackevenoutside420

thecollaborationtimespan(Kondej,2011;Appendix2).

421

17http://www.mediabistro.com/prnewser/fashions‐high‐low‐collaborations‐measured‐by‐media‐impressions_b30447



18OF38

Second,Miller(2010)wroteonherdatareport(SeeAppendix2)thatcollaborationsbetweenhigh

streetchainsanddesignerbrandsimprovetheirfashioncredentialsandallowthemtobeinspiredby

theluxurybrands.

Ontheotherhand,Miller(2010)alsowrotethatcollaborationswithrecentlyfashiongraduatestend

tobeseenasmoreoriginalbecausetheircutting‐edgedesigns–feelingthatgetstransferredtothe

fastfashionretailer’sbrandimage.Asaresult,third,collaborationswithyoungdesignersarea

brilliantPRstrategy,lesscostlythanotherstrategiesbuteffectivein“raisingtheprofile”.For

example,BritishmassfashionbrandTopshopisknownfortheirsupporttoyoungBritishfashion

talents,astheCFDA/VogueFashionFundisinU.S.However,youngdesignerscollaborationsmaynot430

beasprofitableasitseem.In2011,GAPDesignEditions18partnership19withtheCFDA/Vogue

FashionFund20sawitsend.Reportedly,GAP21decidedtoinvestitsmoneyinfamousluxuryfashion

designerscollaborationsinstead,sincethepartnershipwithCFDA/VogueFashionFundwasrequiring

considerableamountsofmoneyandnotreturningtheprofitsGAPexpectedincomparisonwith

StellaMcCartney’scollaboration(SeeAppendix2).Nonetheless,themainreasonmighthavebeen

thatthefinancialdemandsfromtheCFDA/VogueFashionFunddidnotpropitiateanadequate

returnininvestment–ROI.

Luxuryfashionbrands’motivations

Luxuryfashiondesignersfirstmotiveisthedesiretointroducetheirbrandtoyoungsterssowhen

theseyoungstersgrowolderandeconomicallymorepowerfultheretrievaloftheirbrandiseasier.440

Inotherwords,theywanttoengagewithpotentialfutureconsumers.

Furthermore,Okonkwo(2007)discusseshowZarahasscoredhigherbrandequitythanHermèsor

CartierontheontheTop100GlobalBrandsScoreboardbyInterbrand/Businessweek.Okonkwo

(2007)believesthatbecauseconsumersinteractmorewithamassbrandthevalueofthismass

brandislikelytobehigher(p.230).Therefore,luxuryfashionbrandssecondreasontoco‐brandwith

445

18http://www.style.com/peopleparties/parties/scoop/041608GAP19http://www.cfda.com/gap‐cfdavogue‐fashion‐fund‐introduce‐limited‐edition‐collection/20http://www.cfda.com/cfdavogue‐fashion‐fund/21http://fashionista.com/2010/08/why‐gap‐relinquished‐sponsorship‐of‐the‐cfdavogue‐fashion‐fund‐to‐j‐crew‐and‐ann‐

taylor/



19OF38

massfashionbrandsmaybethedesiretoincreasetheirinteractionwithconsumersthus,increase

theirbrandvalue.

Additionally,Miller(2010)statesthatluxuryfashionisnowmoreaccessibletoconsumersthanksto

co‐branding,afactthatalsobenefitsdesignerswithanincreaseofthemedia’sinterest.Anexample

istheCFDA/VogueFashionFund,withVogue’sdirectorAnnaWintourandCFDA’spresidentDiane450

vonFurstenberg,whichhashelpedyoungAmericandesignerslikeTakoontoachievesuccessfaster

thansomelong‐establishedluxurybrands.TheCFDA/VogueFashionFundrequiredtheirsponsors–

formersponsorGAP,andactualsponsorJ.Crew–thateveryyear,theCFDA/VogueFashionFund’s

winnersshouldlaunchacollectionco‐brandingwiththem.

460

3.3.DRAWBACKSOFCO‐BRANDING470

Ontheotherhand,somedisadvantagesmaymenaceco‐brandingalliances.Thefollowing

paragraphsbrieflyconsiderthepossibledrawbacksofco‐branding.

Figure2.Motivationsforco‐branding



20OF38

Forbothbrands

Oneofthemaindangersofco‐brandingisthepossibleharmdonetoabrand’sequity.Brandsare

afraidthatconsumersmayattributenegativeassociationsiftheyhaveanegativeexperiencewith

theco‐brandingproduct,orhadanegativeexperiencewiththeco‐brandingassociate(Washburnet

al.,2000;p.593).However,thelatterstatementhasbeenfalsifiedbySimoninandRuth(1998)when

theyprovedthatunderpositiveco‐brandingproductreviewshigh‐equitybrandsarenotdamaged

bytheirassociationwithlow‐equitybrands(Washburnetal.,2000;p.599).

Formassfashionbrands480

Miller(2010)wroteonherEuromonitorreportthatwhenco‐brandingarrivestothepointthatitno

longerseemsexclusiveitwillbemoredifficulttouseasastrategyofbrand‐building.

Moreover,withthelossofnoveltythescepticismandthelossofeffectivenessmayalsofollow.

Consumersmaynotcontinuetobeconvincedthattheyaregettingextravalueforthemoneypaid–

alongwiththescepticism,thebeliefthatthecollaborationsareoverpricedfastfashionclothes

insteadofbargaindesignergarmentsmayalsofollow.

Forluxurybrands

Some authors believe that co‐branding could damage the luxury fashion brand and make it less

exclusive.Forexample,KondejwroteonherEuromonitorreport“H&M’sloveaffairwithdesigners

showsnosignof cooling” (2011) thatprobablyco‐brandingbetween luxury fashiondesignersand490

massfashionbrandslikeH&Mwillcometoanend,andwhenitdoes,thoseluxurybrandsthatdid

not collaboratewithmass fashionbrandswill beperceivedasmoreelitist andwithhigher equity

than the luxury brands that did collaborate withmass fashion brands. This claim is sustained by

Okonkwo(2007):

True luxury and prestige brands do not utilise mass‐market strategies in order to become mass‐

marketbrands.Rather,theyhaverecognisedthechangesintheluxurymarketplaceandareattuning

theirstrategiesaccordingly,withoutsacrificingtheircoreheritageandbrandessence(p.241).

500



21OF38

3.4.MODELFORCO‐BRANDING

Helmigetal.(2008)developedatheoreticalmodelforco‐brandingbasedonliteratureandsample

research(p.366‐7).

OneoftheobjectivesofthischapteristoexplainHelmig’setal.(2008)modelfroma

straightforwardpointofview,toupdateitwiththepreviousknowledgeacquiredthroughoutthis

thesis(seechapter3.2&3.3),andtocomplementitwithotherscholars’relevanttheoriesthathave

beenregardedasrelevantforthepurposeofthisthesis.Anotherobjective,consignedtothenext

chapter,willbeapplyingthemodelonH&M’sco‐brandingcases.

FourdimensionscomposeHelmig’setal.(2008)model.Thefirstdimensionisthecomposedbythe510

characteristicsoftheoriginalbrands/productsandisrelateddirectlytobrandequity–since

Okonkwo(2007)statesthattheindicatorscomposingbrandequityarebrandimageattributes,

awareness,loyalty,qualityperception,andassociations(p.121).

Consequently,Helmigetal.(2008)statethatco‐brandingwillbesuccessfuliffirst,brandawareness

ishigh,whichmeansthatbothoratleastoneofthebrandsiswellknownwithintheirpublics.

Figure3.Drawbacksofco‐branding



22OF38

Second,theperceivedqualityishigh,whichmeansthatbothoratleastoneofthebrandsis

consideredtohaveagoodquality‐pricerelationship.

Third,thebrandimageishigh,whichmeansthatbothoratleastoneofthebrandsisconsideredto

haveastrongimageonconsumers’minds.

Andfourth,Lindstrom(2002)andUggla(2006)mentionthatbothcompaniesshouldachieveequal520

valueoutoftheco‐brandingpartnership.Thisfourthcharacteristicisimportantbecauseitwillavoid

laterdiscomfortandpossibleproblemsbetweenthebrandscomposingtheco‐brandingdeal.

ThefifthcharacteristiccorrespondstotheseconddimensionofHelmig’setal.(2008)model,

characteristicsoftheco‐brandedproduct.Thus,fifth,iftheadvertisingisrelevant,whichmeansthat

theadvertisingoftheproductisappropriateandindicatessomeoftheadvantagesoftheco‐

brandedproductovertheothers,theco‐brandedproductwillbesuccessful.

AakerandKeller(1990)proposedthreedimensionsoffitforbrandextensions:complementarity,

substitutability,andtransferability(SooKyoungetal.,2010;p.9).InHelmig’setal.(2008)modelthe

thirdofthesedimensionscanbetranslatedintocomplementariness,thefirstintofitbetweenthe

brandsandtheco‐brandedproduct,butthesecondhowever,cannotbetranslatedintoanyofthe530

characteristicsofthemodel.Substitutabilityrelatesconsumersandhowtheyseetheproductasa

substituteforotherproduct.Therefore,consideringsubstitutabilityasanimportantcharacteristic

forco‐brandingsuccess,itshouldbeaddedtoHelmig’setal.(2008)model.

Nonetheless,thenewaddedsixthcharacteristictoHelmig’setal.(2008)modelshouldbeexplained

fromaco‐brandingpointofview–insteadofabrandextensionpointofview.Theproductisnot

onlyasubstituteforapreviousproductbutanupgradethusthecharacteristicsareimprovedand

mayevencoverconsumerneedsthatwerenevercoveredbefore,anexampleofthisisY3.Since

1987luxuryfashiondesignerYojiYamamotoisdesigningalineofsportswearforAdidascalledY3.

Nowadaysthisco‐brandingcasestillexistsandY3evenpresentstheirnewcollectionswitha

runawayshowinNewYork’sFashionWeek.ApartfromtheY3line,AdidascollaborateswithStella540

McCartney(Okonkwo,2007;p.169).Bothcollaborationsfulfilledneedsofconsumersthat

previouslywereneversatisfied,theneedfordesignersportsclothes.Inaddition,bothcollaborations

arelong‐termanddefyoneofthecharacteristicsmanyscholarssaidthatco‐brandingstrategies

shouldhave,ephemerality.



23OF38

Lindstrom(2002)andUggla(2006)relatetheseventhcharacteristictotargetaudience.Iftheco‐

brandingproduct/alliancecannotbepresentedeasilytoitspotentialcustomers,itwillnotsucceed–

peopleneedclearideasofwhataproductcanoffertothem.So,theseventhcharacteristicwillbe

clearfunctionality.

TheeighthcharacteristiccorrespondstothethirddimensioninHelmig’setal.(2008)model,brand

andproductfit.Thischaracteristicwillbecomplementariness,whichmeansthatbothbrandsshould550

becomplementaryinthemindoftheconsumerregardingfitwithoneattributeoftheco‐branded

product,brandfit,andproductfit.Inaddition,Lindstrom(2002)statedthatbeforeanything,

companiesshouldlookintotheirvaluesandseeiftheco‐brandingpartnertheyaimforhasthe

samevaluesasthembecauseifnot,theco‐brandingstrategywillfail.Sobrandvaluematchwillbe

theninthcharacteristicofthethirddimensioninHelmig’setal.(2008)model.

Finally,otherresearchers(Euromonitor)expressedthatco‐brandinginthefashionworldshouldbe

donebetweenlowfashionbrandsandhighfashiondesigners,henceco‐brandingbetweenmasstige

andluxuryfashiondesignersisaformulatoavoid.Themotiveforthisstatementisthebeliefthat

co‐brandingshouldnotexceedaparticularpricerange.Somecollaborationsdefythisformulaand

haveproventobeprofitable.Thismaybetruedependingondifferentfactors,thethoroughstudyof560

thetargetaudiencebeingoneofthemostimportant.

Atleastoneofthebrandscomposingtheco‐brandingshouldbeafitwiththetargetaudience.For

example,OpeningCeremonyhascollaboratedwithmanyluxuryfashiondesignersanddespitetheir

higherpricestheyhavesucceededintheirstrategyalsowinningthe2011WGSNGlobalFashion

Awardsfortheiroutstandingfashioncollaborations(SeeAppendix2).Anotherexamplecouldbe

fairlyclassicItalianluxurybrandofaccessoriesTod’sincollaboration22withJeffersonHack,editorof

magazineDazed&Confused.Itcouldbesaidthattheirtargetaudienceisquitedifferent.However,

withthiscollaborationTod’shasaccomplishedtorejuvenatetheirbrandandgiveitahiptouchthat

wasmuchneeded.Theseexamplesconfirmthatwhenabrandtakestheirtargetaudienceinto

considerationandprofoundlyknowstheirconsumeritcanachievesuccessdespitedefyingscholar’s570

recommendations.ThisclaimwillbethelastcharacteristicincludedinHelmig’setal.(2008)model

togetherwithfactorsasproductinvolvementandbrandorientation–becausethemoreinvolveda

572

22http://www.styleintel.com/2012/01/exclusive‐tods‐and‐jefferson‐hack‐pair‐up‐for‐new‐shoe‐design/



24OF38

personiswithabrandandaproductthemoreinteresttheywilltakeintheco‐brandedresulting

product(seechapter2).

Thefollowingmodelresultsfromthemergerofalltheoriesinthischapterandconsiderationsdone:

Havingmentionedthecharacteristicsthatmakesuccessfulco‐brandingstrategies(Fig.4),itisvisible

someoverlapwiththedifferentmotivesandadvantagesforco‐branding(Fig.2).Therefore,before

startingco‐branding,brandsshouldthinkaboutwhattheywanttoaccomplishandwhatthey580

alreadyhave,andconsidertheiroptionsforco‐brandingpartners.Afterwards,theymaytakeuseof

themodel(Fig.4)andconsideriftheco‐brandingcasewouldworkwiththecomponentstheyhave

athand.

Okonkwo(2007)developedsometacticalguidelinesfromherexperienceintheco‐brandingand

luxurybrandingfields.Shestatesthatfirstly,foreveryco‐brandingstrategytheremustalwaysbea

strategicpurpose,forexampleastoreopeningoramarketentrance.Thepurposemaybe

consideredinadvancetogetherwiththebrands’motivationsandcharacteristicsforsuccessstatedin

theco‐brandingmodelsabove(Fig.2&4).

Figure4.Characteristicsofsuccessfulco‐branding



25OF38

Secondly,Okonkwo(2007)alsoaddedthatfashioncollaborationsshouldalwaysbelimitededitions

inordertoretaintheluxurysensation.Andfinally,theco‐brandresultmustbeclearly590

communicatedtoconsumersgivingnoplaceofmisunderstandingsregardingbrandequityand

image(p.171,242).Inotherwords,itshouldbeclearthatforexample,thegarmentsarearesult

fromco‐brandingofaluxurybrandwithamassfashionbrand,andthatthemassfashionbrandis

theoneadaptingtheluxurybranddesignstotheirsystemproducing,anddistributingtheproduct.

3.5.CONCLUSION

Collaborationswillcontinueaslongasthebenefitsaremoreadvantageousthanthedrawbacksfor

bothco‐brandingpartners.However,Miller(2010)andLindstrom23(2002)statedthat90%ofco‐

brandingcasesfail–whichfactorsMiller(2010)orLindstrom(2002)analysedtoarrivetothis600

conclusionisunknownbythisthesis’author.

Howlongcollaborationscancontinueisaquestionthatconcernstomany.Thedrawbacks

mentionedabove,butmainlythelossofexclusivity,maytriggertheendofthetrendofco‐branding.

Thatdoesnotmeanthatco‐brandingwillendperse,butthatthecollaborationswillgradually

diminish.Thebestthingthatmarketerscandoistomonitorconsumerbehaviourtodetectpossible

605

23http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1716654/brand‐brand‐success‐part

Purpose+aim(needs+wants)

Limited‐edition

Cleardescription/product

Figure5.TacticalGuidelines



26OF38

changesinattitudetowardsco‐branding,andtoobservehowthesecollaborationsarejudgeddayby

day(Kondej,2011).

Themodelforsuccessfulco‐brandingproposedinthischapterconstitutesmerelyastartingpointfor

anyco‐brandingstrategy.Itisamodeltogothroughbeforechoosingtheco‐brandingpartnerand

product.Afterwards,afullIntegratedMarketingCommunication(IMC)studywillbenecessaryusing610

PRESTCOM,SWOT,andRABOSTICinordertoanalyseallthemarketfactorsandenvironment,to

understandthecompany’sposition,andtodevelopthemainanalysis,respectively(Pickton&

Broderick,2005).

4.CASEANALYSIS

ThepurposeofthischapteristoanalyseH&M’sco‐brandingcaseswithHelmig’setal.(2008)model

fromchapter3(Fig.4)inordertodevelopahypothesisaboutwhatdefinesasuccessful

collaborationinfashionco‐branding.

Thischapterwillfirst,brieflyanalysethehistoryH&M.Second,analyseH&M’srelevantco‐branding

casesincomparisonwithHelmig’setal.(2008)complementedmodelfromchapter3(Fig.4)inorder620

todefinetheelementsthatcreatesuccessfulcollaborationsinreal‐life.Andthird,concludewiththe

findingsfromchapter4.2.

Notefromtheauthor:FulldataofallH&M’sco‐brandingcasescanfoundattheEuromonitorreport

regardingH&Mcollaborations(SeeAppendix3).

4.1.HISTORYOFH&M

H&MHennes&MauritzAB(operatingasH&M24)isaSwedishfast‐fashionretail‐clothingcompany

foundedin1947.Ithasover2,000storesin43countriesandemploysmorethan90,000people.Itis

thefourthlargestapparelcompanyjustbehindNike,AdidasandInditex(1st,2ndand3rd)(See

Appendix3).630

630

24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%26M



27OF38

H&M’stargetaudienceisyoungwomen,fashion‐conscious,andusuallyonabudget,betweenthe

agesof15to34.H&M’smissionstatementcombinesperfectlytheirtargetaudience’sdesires:

“fashionandqualityatthebestprice”.

Euromonitor’sauthorshavedevelopedaSWOTanalysisaboutH&M’ssituationin2011(See

Appendix3):

Strengths Weaknesses

• Fastfashiontrend.

• Strongbrandimage.

• Revenuegrowth.

• Widespreadgeographicpresence.

• Excessivedependenceonthirdparty

vendorsforsupplyofmerchandise.

Opportunities Threats

• Growthonretailapparelindustry.

• Growthononlineshopping.

• GrowthonplussizemarketinUSandUK.

• ExpansionofCOSstores.

• Planningofluxurylinelaunch:“&Other

Stories”25.

• ExpansioninkeymarketsofAsia.

• Intensecompetition.

• RisinglabourcostsinAsiapressuring

margins.

• WeakconsumerspendinginUSand

Europe.

• Riskofforeignexchangefluctuations.

Since2004,H&M’skeystrategyhasbeenitspartnership/co‐brandingwithluxuryfashiondesigners.

NowadaysthesecollaborationsshapeapartofH&M’sbrandequity.640

ThisthesishaschosentoanalyseandcontrastH&M’scollaborationswithHelmig’setal.(2008)

model,notonlybecausetheirannualreportsarepublicbut,becausethesecollaborationshavebeen

asignificantachievementinthefashionindustry.

644

25http://www.vogue.co.uk/news/2012/03/27/hm‐to‐launch‐own‐luxury‐label



28OF38

4.2.H&M’sCO‐BRANDINGCASESANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

SomeofH&M’sdifferentdesignercollaborationsaregoingtobeanalysedincontrastwithHelmig’s

etal.(2008)complementedmodelforco‐brandingsuccess(Fig.4).AlldatafromH&M

collaborationscanbefoundinEuromonitor’sreport(SeeAppendix3).

ThefirstH&McollaborationwaswithluxuryfashiondesignerKarlLagerfeldanditwasannouncedin

June2004forbeinglaterlaunchedinNovember.FinanciallyspeakingitwasH&M’smostsuccessful650

collaboration,untilMarni,witha24%increaseinorganicmonthlysalesincludingVATcompared

withthepreviousyear(Y‐O‐Y).

Ontheonehand,thisthesisauthorbelievesthatthetacticalaspectsofthiscollectionwere

thoroughlystudiedbeforehand.So,fromthetacticalpointofview(Fig.5),first,thecollection’s

purposewastwofold.Ontheonehand,H&Mwantedtoincreaseitssalesandpopularity.Onthe

otherhand,thecollaborationwastheperfectpracticeexerciseforKarlLagerfeldtolaunchhisown

masstigecollection26later.Second,thecollectionwasalimitededition,asallH&Mcollaborations

are,sotheauraofexclusivitywaspreserved.Third,itwasclearthatthiscollaborationwasKarl

Lagerfeld’sownseparatefromChanel,andthatdesigningafastfashioncollectionwithH&M’s

resourceswasanexerciseofdesignforLagerfeld.Inotherwords,itwasclearfromthebeginning660

thatthiscollectionwasnotaluxurycollectionbutacollectionthatbroughttheluxuryfashion

designstothemassfashionmarket.Lagerfeldwasadmiredforhisempathywiththeconsumerwhile

H&Mwascherishedformakingavailableluxurytonormalpeople.Asaconsequence,bothbrands

raisedtheirequityontheeyesoftheconsumer.

Ontheotherhand,thecharacteristicsforsuccess(Fig.4)ofthiscollectionwereallcovered.First,

bothbrands’awarenesswashigh–however,KarlLagerfeld’sawarenesswashigherin2004because

H&Mwasnotaswidespreadworldwideasitisnowin2012.Second,theperceivedqualityofKarl

Lagerfeldbrandwashigh,asaresult,ithadpositiveeffectsinenhancingamoderatequality

constituentbrandlikeH&M.Third,bothbrandshadalreadyhighbrandequity,butthiscollaboration

wastranslatedintoahigherperceivedequityofH&M’sbrand.Fourth,thisco‐brandingformwas670

fairlynew,especiallybetweenluxuryfashiondesignersandfastfashionbrands,thusthisconstituted

aninnovativeproductdifferentfromendorsements.Fifth,forbothbrandsitwasawin‐winsituation.

672

26http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2012/01/25/Karl‐Net‐a‐Porter‐Launch‐012512.aspx



29OF38

Sixth,theadvertisingofthecollaborationwashighprofile.Billboardads,atwo‐minuteTV

commercial,andanonlinepreviewreleaseatH&M’swebpagecreatedfreepresscoverageand

expectationaroundthecollaboration.Asaresult,longqueuesofpeoplewerewaitingatthestores’

doorsforthein‐storelaunch.Seventh,itwasclearthattheproductwasamassfashionproduction

andthatitwasnotaChanelitem,asKarlhimselfdeclared,hewantedtomakeready‐to‐wear

clothestomakethe“inexpensivedesirable”.

Eighth,thedegreeofcomplementarinessregardinganattributeoftheco‐brandedproductwashigh,

asbothbrandsarefashionbrandssobothseemedcompatiblefromtheconsumers’pointofview–680

butnotforsomecriticsthough.Thefitbetweenbothbrandswentfurther.AsKarlLagerfeld

expressedpreviously,hisdesiretomakefashionforthemassesfittedperfectlyH&M’smission,

vision,andvalues.However,afterthecollaborationended,KarlLagerfeldcriticisedH&Mformaking

alimitededitioncollection,implyingthathisdesignswerenotaccessibleforthemajorityofpeople.

Inaddition,thecollaborationhadalsoahighfitinvolvingperson‐specificvariables.Theassociation

ofKarlLagerfeldwithChanelresultedinacollectionthatanyyounggirlwouldlovetohave–since

theywouldlovetohaveanythingfromChanel27(seechapter2).Thetargetaudiencefit,product

involvementandbrandorientationwashigh,thusthesuccessoftheco‐branding.

H&MandKarlLagerfeld’scollaborationhadallthefactorsnecessaryforsuccessandtheydid

success.Additionally,thecollaboration’snoveltywasanadvantageinordertoattractinnovative690

consumersandearlyadopters(Solomonetal.,2002).

AfterKarlLagerfeld’scollaborationmanyhavecomeafter,whicharelistedbychronologicalorder:

697

27http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/25/brand‐luxury‐desirable‐forbeslife‐cx_nr_0325style_slide_3.html?thisSpeed=20000



30OF38

ApartfromKarlLagerfeldcollaboration,themostsuccessfulofallH&M’scollaborationshasbeen

Marni’scollection,witha26%increaseinorganicmonthlysalesincludingVAT(Y‐O‐Y)anda16%700

increaseofmonthlysalesincomparableunits(L‐F‐L)comparedwiththepreviousyear.

Marni’scaseisanexampleofthegreatinfluenceofconsumerbehaviourinmarketstrategies.Itis

notclearifH&Mknewbeforehandhowsuccessfulthiscollaborationwouldbe,evenwhenitwas

lackingmanyofthecharacteristicsdescribedaboveforsuccessfulcollaborations(Fig.4).Consumer

behaviourcansurpriseeventhebestexpertsinmarketing.

IfwecompareMarni’scasewithHelmig’setal.(2008)model,someabsencesofdifferent

characteristicscanbenoticed.Ontheonehand,Marniisarelativelyyoungfashionbrand–bornin

1994.Itsbrand’sawarenesswithinH&M’stargetaudiencecouldbeconsideredlow,asMarniis

knownmorewithinolderconsumersandbourgeoisgirlswithatendencyforfurandluxury28.

However,thislowawarenesswithinH&M’sgeneralpublicmayhavebeenthestrengthofits710

success.

711

28http://www.style.com/fashionshows/designerdirectory/MARNI/seasons/

2004KarlLagerfeld

StellaMcCartney Viktor&Rolf RobertoCavalli

Marimekko CommedesGarçons

MatthewWilliamson JimmyChoo

SoniaRykiel Lanvin Versace2012Marni

Figure6.H&M'scollaborationschart



31OF38

H&M’sandMarni’scollaborationmayhaveachievedtoattractthechicbourgeoisgirlsthatafterthe

recessionneededtosavemoneybutstillwantedtodresschicandwithqualitygarments–asMarni’s

collectionforH&Mwasentirelycomposedbysilk,cottonandleathergarments.Ontheotherhand,

thebrandfitbetweenH&MandMarniwasnotashighasthefitwithothercollaborations.Although

Marni’scollaborationforH&Mwaslackingbothofthefactorsmentionedintheaboveparagraphs,

thecollaborationwasthemostsuccessfulofallpreviouscollaborations(SeeAppendix3).

Inconclusion,evenifthetargetaudienceandbrandfitwerenotashighaswithother

collaborations,theco‐brandingcasebetweenMarniandH&Mattractednewconsumers–which

weresearchingforsubstitutesoftheirhabitualluxurybrands,amorematureconsumer.Proofof720

thatmaybethearticlesfoundindifferentnewspapers29,whichtargetaudienceusuallycomprisesan

olderandupscalepublic30.Inaddition,thesuccesscouldbealsoaccreditedtothecollectionquality

andperceivedprice‐valuerelationship.Forexample,JimmyChoowasoneofH&M’sworst

collaborationsintermsoffinancialfacts,allduetoconsumers’price‐valuerelationshipperception

anditshighprices–eventhoughJimmyChoocollectionhadarealhigherprice‐valueincomparison

withothercollaborations(SeeAppendix3).Inotherwords,consumersdidnotexpectthehighprices

ofJimmyChoo’scollectionwithH&M.Duetothis,theirperceptionoftheprice‐valuerelationship

waslowerhencethelowerqualityperceptionofthecollection,resultinginpoorsales.

AnotherfactorthatHelmig’setal.(2008)includedintheirmodelwasbrandawareness.Theystated

thatwell‐knownnationalbrands’productsresultingfromtheco‐brandingwithanotherbrandhave730

morepositiveevaluationsbyconsumers(p.364).However,theyeludedtoanalysemoredeeplythe

theorythatwaspreviouslypresentedbyVaidyanathanandAggarwal(2000)concerningbrands’

nationalidentity.

Countrieswherefashionishighlypromoted,withfashionweeksoryoungdesigners’associations31,

havereceivedpositivelyfashioncollaborationswithnationaldesigners(SeeAppendix3).

735

29http://nymag.com/daily/fashion/2012/02/see‐the‐complete‐marni‐for‐hm‐collection.html

30“(…)NewYorkMagazine’stargetaudienceofupscale(andwould‐beupscale)readers(…)”:

http://www.sampratt.com/sam/2010/06/new‐york‐magazine‐1998.html31http://www.youngbritishdesigners.com/index.php



32OF38

Forexample,collaborationsthatH&MhasmadewithdesignersfromUK32likeStellaMcCartneyand

MatthewWilliamson,ItalylikeRobertoCavalliandMarni,orFrancelikeLanvinhadallpositive

impactonsales–evenwhenmissingsomeofthecharacteristicsforsuccessfromHelmig’setal.

(2008)model(SeeAppendix3).

Finally,asseeninchapter2,whenbuyingclothesconsumersexpectdesign.“Atributeto740

Marimekko”wastheonlycollaborationthatH&Mdesigned,whileMarimekkocontributedwiththe

prints.Therefore,itisnotstrangethatthecollaborationwastheleastsuccessful.

4.3.CONCLUSION

H&Mhashadalonglistofcollaborations,onesmoresuccessfulthanothers.Afterhavingapplied

Helmig’setal.(2008)modifiedmodeltosomeofH&M’scasessomesignificantfindingscanbe

identified.Ontheonehand,itisnoticeablethatifmostofthefactorsthatcharacterisesuccessful

collaborations(Fig.4)arecovered,itcouldleadtosuccess.Ontheotherhand,itwasdiscoveredthat

somecollaborationsfailedbecauseH&Mmisjudgedconsumers’predilections–forexampleinthe

caseofMarimekko.Consumersarewillingtopaytheextrapricefordesignandquality.Ifa750

collaborationismissingoneorbothofthesefeatures,theco‐brandingcasemostlikelywillfail.

Oneofthemostimportantfactorsisthetargetaudienceandtheirexpectations,whicharealso

relatedwiththefourP’softhemarketingmix(Pickton&Broderick,2005).Forexample,inH&M’s

caseitwasdiscoveredthatitisimportanttopricetheco‐brandingcollectionaccordinglyconsumers’

expectations.Ifthecollection’spricerangedoesnotreflectconsumers’anticipations,theconsumer

willperceivealowerprice‐valueforthecollection–reflectingtheninbadreviewsandnegativesales.

Inconclusion,itisveryimportantatforehandtounderstandwhatdoesthetargetaudienceexpect

fromacollaboration.Afterwards,companiesshouldmakeastudyoftheirpossibleco‐branding

partnerswiththemodelsinchapter3(Fig.2&4).Then,theyshouldstudythemarketsituationwith

theIMCmodelmentionedpreviously.Andfinally,theyshouldcarefullycreatethe4P’softhe760

marketingmixtakingintoconsiderationagaintheirtargetaudienceandwhattheyexpectfromeach

oftheP’sinthemodel.

762

32http://whatsgoingonatconran.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/patriotism‐and‐british‐design/



33OF38

5.CONCLUSION

Inmarketingtherehasalwaysbeenaneedtounderstandconsumerbehaviourinordertopredict

thesuccessofproducts,brandsorstrategies.Inthatregarditwasconsiderednecessaryto

understandandclarifyconsumerbehaviouranditsinfluenceonco‐brandingtrendsinorderto

answertheproblemstatement:Whatdefinesasuccessfulcollaborationinfashionco‐branding?

Foraco‐brandingstrategytobesuccessfulforafashioncompanyitmustpossessalloratleastsome

ofthecharacteristicsforsuccessfulcollaborations–analysedanddiscussedinchapter3(Fig.2&4).770

InthecaseofH&M,someofthemostsuccessfulcollaborationsdidhavealltheingredients

mentionedinthemodifiedmodelforsuccessfulco‐brandingfromHelmigetal.(2008)(Fig.4).

However,somedidnothavealltheingredientsandwerestillconsideredsuccessful–evenoneof

themwasthemostsuccessfulcollaborationuptothemoment.Whatmadethesecollaborations

moresuccessfulwasmainlytheknowledgeoftheirpotentialtargetaudiences’underlyingdesires–

inadditiontofactorsliketheconsumers’positiveimpressionsofthecollection’sprice‐value

relationship,thefeelingofexclusivity,andtheproperadvertisements.Moreover,afterMarimekko’s

failedco‐brandingcollection,H&Mdidlearnthattheformulathatattractsconsumerstowardsfast

fashionbrands–design,trends,andprice–shouldalsoapplytoitsco‐brandingcollections.

Financialsuccess,brandequity,accessingnewconsumermarkets,reachingnewconsumer780

segments,andmediacoverageareusuallythemainmotivesforco‐brandingstrategies.However,a

companymaysacrificeoneofthesefeaturestofavourtheotherswhentheybelievethatthe

presenceofonewillpositivelyinfluencetheothers,resultinginanoverallsuccessintheend.For

example,abrandcoveringanichemarketwithaco‐brandingcollectionmaynotconsiderstrong

month‐over‐monthearningsgrowthasimportantasmoderategrowth–iftheco‐brandingstrategy

savesmoneyinmediacoverageandtherebystrengthensitsbrandequity,factorsthatmight

possiblyresultinyear‐over‐yearearningsgrowth.

Thisthesishashelpedtoelucidatesomepreliminaryfactorsthateverybrandstrategistneedsto

considerbeforedecidingtoimplementaco‐brandingstrategy.Thefirstdrawofaconceptual

frameworkforco‐brandingwassuggestedthroughtherefinementofHelmig’setal.(2008)model,790

andtheanalysisofH&M’sco‐brandingcasesinordertodevelopsuccessfulco‐brandingstrategies.



34OF38

Asseeninchapter3/section3.3,therearecertaindrawbacksthatmightdamagebrandequity.This

thesishasaccomplishedtodrawapaththatmaypreventthesedamages.Eventhoughthereareno

fixedrules,thestepsrecommendedtofollowarefirstly,athoroughexaminationofthepotentialco‐

brandingpartners,followedbytheexaminationoftheownbrand’squalities,aswellasdetermining

theobjectivesoftheco‐branding,andfinallyknowingthetargetaudienceneedsandexpectations.

Co‐brandingcanthereforebebothalucrativeandenrichingbusinessstrategy,butitcanalsoresult

indamagingeffectsforthereputationofthebrand.

Inconclusion,forsuccessfulco‐brandingstrategiescompaniesdonotneedtofulfilallthe

characteristicspresentedinthisthesis’model.Asstatedpreviously,companiescansacrificeoneor800

someobjectivesandcharacteristicsforsuccessfulco‐branding(Fig.2&4)andstillbesuccessful.

Thereisnotonlyoneformulaforsuccess,manyfactorsthathavebeenelucidatedthroughoutthis

thesisneedtobeconsidered.

6.FUTURERESEARCH

Fashionco‐brandingcollectionshavebeenprovedtobesuccessfuldifferentiatingstrategiesinthe

increasingcompetitivefashionretailmarket.However,furtherresearchmustbedoneregardingco‐

brandingrisksanddrawbacks.

Ontheonehand,oneofthemostsignificantrisksinco‐brandingcasesisthelossofthenovelty.

Whatmadeco‐brandingspecialisitsauraofreachableexclusiveness.Ifco‐brandingbecomesa810

commonstrategy,itsexclusivenessmaydeclineandconsequentlyitssuccess.Furtherresearch

shouldbefocusedonconsumerbehaviourinordertofindpossiblesolutionstopreventthedecline

ofthenovelty.

Ontheotherhand,companiesshouldtakeintoconsiderationtherecentshiftsinconsumer

behaviouroccurredinLatinAmerica,EasternEuropeandpartlyinUS,towardsaqualityand

masstigetrend.Eventhoughthereasonsfortheseshiftsinconsumerbehaviouraremainly

attributedtoraisingincomes,itisknownthatconsumerbehaviourdoesnotonlychangebecauseof

financialfactorsbutalsobecauseofsocialfactors.Althoughvaluesandbeliefsaremainlyfixedtraits

amongpeople,theystillchangeslowlyovertime.Thesechangesmightberelatedtosomeextendto



35OF38

socialmarketing–associalmarketingaimsforchangeinbehaviours(KotlerandLee,2008).Thus,820

furtherresearchtakingintoconsiderationthemainaimsofsocialmarketingcampaignsandthe

consequentchangeinpeople’sbehaviourscouldhelpbrandstoadaptco‐brandingcasestothenew

consumervalues.Forexample,somebrandshavestartedtocollaboratewithsocialcampaignsor

NGOscreatingproductsasaresultofco‐brandingorcollaborations.Anotherexampleofconsumers’

shiftinvaluesistherecentcampaignofH&Mandtheirconsciouscollection.Eventhoughitisnota

co‐brandingcase,ithasstillsomecharacteristicsthatfallintothepreviousmodelforsuccessfulco‐

branding,anditcreatesbrandequitybycommittingwithethicalfashionsconsciousconsumers

(Okonkwo,2007;p.239).

Finally,themotivesandoutcomesofco‐brandingshouldbestudiedfurther.Sometimescompanies

embraceco‐brandingwithoutaclearstudyofitsgoalsandriskstherefore,whenco‐brandingfails830

theymightbemoredamagedthanothercompaniesthatdidnotembraceinco‐brandingstrategies.

Therefore,furtherresearchofco‐brandingrisksshouldbedone,notonlytoavoidco‐brandingfails

butalsotowarncompaniesofpossiblenegativeoutcomes.Thereareothermanystrategiesthatcan

befollowedinordertoreinforceabrand’sequity.Forexample,Inditexdoesnotembraceco‐

brandingandin2011hada9%ofglobalretailgrowth–incomparisonwiththe7%ofH&M.

840



36OF38

7.BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aaker,D.A.(2010).Buildingstrongbrands:DavidA.Aaker.London:Simon&Schuster.

Andal‐Ancion,A.,Coyle,C.,&French,L.(2010).Reactingtoconsumertrends,reachingnew850

markets,andmitigatingrisksinatougheconomicenvironment.TheLicensingJournal(January

2010).

Dell'Era,C.,&Verganti,R.(2010).CollaborativeStrategiesinDesign‐intensiveIndustries:

KnowledgeDiversityandInnovation.LongRangePlanning,43,1,123‐141.

Chang,W.‐L.(2008).OnCob:Anontology‐basedknowledgesystemforsupportingposition

andclassificationofco‐brandingstrategy.Knowledge‐BasedSystems,21,498‐506.

Gass,R.H.,&Seiter,J.S.(2011).Persuasion,socialinfluence,andcompliancegaining.

Boston:Allyn&Bacon.

Geylani,T.,Inman,J.J.,&Hofstede,F.T.(2008).Imagereinforcementorimpairment:The

effectsofco‐brandingonattributeuncertainty.MarketingScience,27,4,730‐744.860

Greenwald,M.(2011).Thesecretsofsuccessfulco‐brands.INC.,[Online]Availableat:

<http://www.inc.com/michelle‐greenwald/innovative‐co‐branding‐and‐creative‐partnerships.html>

[Accessed1May2012].

Helmig,B.,Huber,J.‐A.,&Leeflang,PeterS.H.(2008).Co‐Branding:TheStateoftheArt.

VerlagsgruppeHandelsblattGmbH.

Keller,K.L.,Apéria,T.,&Georgson,M.(2012).Strategicbrandmanagement:AEuropean

perspective.Harlow,England:NewYork:FinancialTimes/PrenticeHall.

Kotler,P.,&Lee,N.(2008).Socialmarketing:Influencingbehaviorsforgood.LosAngeles:

SagePublications.

Lindstrom,M.(2002).Brand+Brand=Success?Part1.Clickz,[Online]Availableat:870

<http://www.clickz.com/clickz/column/1716654/brand‐brand‐success‐part>[Accessed1May2012].



37OF38

Okonkwo,U.(2007).Luxuryfashionbranding:Trends,tactics,techniques.Basingstoke:

PalgraveMacmillan.

Pickton,D.,&Broderick,A.(2005).Integratedmarketingcommunications.Harlow,England:

PrenticeHall/FinancialTimes.

Skinner,Q.(1986).Thereturnofgrandtheoryinthehumansciences.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Solomon,M.R.,&Bamossy,G.J.(2002).Consumerbehaviour:AEuropeanperspective.

London:PrenticeHallEurope.

SooKyoung,A.,HaeJung,K.,&Judith,A.F.(2010).Fashioncollaborationorcollision?:880

Examiningthematch‐upeffectinco‐marketingalliances.JournalofFashionMarketingand

Management,14,1,6‐20.

Uggla,H.(2006).Thecorporatebrandassociationbase:Aconceptualmodelforthecreation

ofinclusivebrandarchitecture.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,40,785‐802.

Washburn,J.H.,Till,B.D.,&Priluck,R.(January01,2000).Co‐branding:brandequityand

trialeffects.JournalofConsumerMarketing,17,591‐604.

Yinyin,T.(2010).Consumerbehaviorcharacteristicsinfastfashion.MasterofFashion

ManagementBorås,Sweden.

890



38OF38

8.APPENDICES

Laura anthes' thesis

Business

Transcript of Laura anthes' thesis