In the competitive world of business, many brands seek to stand out through innovative strategies. Co-branding emerges as one such solution, promoting partnerships between companies to offer a joint product or service. However, it is necessary to analyze and understand whether this strategy always brings benefits or could represent a risk for the brands involved.
According to research conducted by Visual Objects, 71% of consumers are attracted to co-branding and approve of this type of partnership between companies. Additionally, this strategy can contribute to and increase brand engagement while also helping brands differentiate themselves from competitors.
Co-branding is a powerful tool but must be used with caution. The idea of uniting two brands to add value for consumers can be advantageous when there is synergy between partners. Partnerships like Carmed, Cimed’s lip balm brand, and Fini are an example that can be cited. This collaboration resulted in a significant increase in Carmed’s revenue. According to released data, in 2023, Cimed recorded revenue of R$ 400 million from Carmed product sales, representing a growth of 1,566% compared to the R$ 24 million earned the previous year.
Another example that can be cited refers to the partnership between Burger King and influencer Mari Maria, resulting in the launch of an exclusive line of lip glosses inspired by flavors from the fast-food chain’s menu. The main idea behind this partnership aimed to offer a unique experience to consumers and explore new ways to connect with the audience, in addition to potentially expanding the presence of Mari Maria Makeup in the international market by leveraging Burger King’s global reach.
However, not every collaboration results in success, and this is where risks emerge. First, the identity of the brands involved must be aligned. When this doesn’t happen, the partnership can seem forced and even harmful. A clear example of poorly planned co-branding was the collaboration between Shell and LEGO, which faced strong public rejection due to environmental concerns. This incompatibility can lead to image crises and alienate loyal customers.
Additionally, there is the risk of one brand benefiting more than the other. If a partnership is not well-balanced, one company may emerge stronger while the other gains little from the collaboration. This can lead to internal conflicts and dissatisfaction among those involved. Another point of concern is excessive dependence on the partnership. Some brands may become so associated with a partner that if the relationship ends, public perception of the company could be negatively impacted. This highlights the importance of maintaining an independent identity and not relying solely on co-branding as a marketing strategy.
Moreover, co-branding, often celebrated as a successful strategy among major brands, can easily become an exclusionary tool in the market. Partnerships between giants further consolidate their dominance, leaving smaller companies on the sidelines of this practice. However, smaller brands can overcome this barrier by seeking strategic alliances with complementary businesses within their niche, exploring authentic values and innovative proposals. Instead of relying on validation from larger players, well-planned partnerships between small and medium-sized businesses can have real impact, provided they are grounded in relevance to the audience and the construction of a strong joint identity.
Finally, co-branding should be adopted with strategic planning and careful risk analysis. When executed well, it can be an excellent way to drive innovation, expand markets, and strengthen brands. However, without proper alignment, it can backfire. Before betting on this strategy, it is essential to assess the compatibility between brands and ensure mutual benefits. After all, the strategy depends on building an authentic and relevant partnership for the consumer.
