• Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

International Co-Branding

The concept of International Co-branding

In today’s world, businesses have become innovative making them enjoy the benefits of synergy. Businesses operating in different lines are combining efforts to offer products and services that one business could not have offered effectively or could not have offered at all. Consequently, co-branding has become a common business element. According to Blackett, Boad, Interbrand, & Palgrave Connect (1999), the concept of international co-branding refers to the use of multiple brand names on service or product by several international companies or a local and an international company. When it comes to the internet, co-branding refers to the display of multiple corporate logos or brand names on one website so that person visiting the website sees it as a joint venture. Effective use of co-branding by companies provides an opportunity of combining their marketing efforts to work in synergy.

There are two types of co-branding namely composite and ingredient co-branding. Composite co-branding is using two renowned business brand names in a manner that they collectively offer a distinct service or product that any of the business could no offer individually. The success of composite co-branding is dependent on the extent of complementarities between the businesses and the favorability brand ingredients. Ingredient co-branding refers to utilizing a renowned brand as an ingredient/component in the production of another brand (Rouse, 2006).

An example of international brands that has used co-branding to promote each other in a certain market is Nike and Apple’s Sports Kits (Hesseldahl & Holmes, 2006). Nike specializes in producing sports materials such as shoes and sports attires among other sports products. On the other hand, Apple specializes in producing computers, software, and electronic products and the related services. To tap into one another’s market, Nike developed shoes that had slots for +pod so that Nike customers could be inspired to try while at the same time Nike customers could be inspired to try Apple. In this case, of Nike and Apple, it was a win-win situation for both companies.

In the Apple and Nike Example, Nike cannot work alone while Apple can also not work alone to implement the idea. Both companies came together to complement one another and create a market for their new products. Both Apple and Nike remained in their specialized fields and only came together to ensure that their marketing efforts worked in Synergy. There is no direct manner which either Apple or Nike befitted from co-branding. Singly, each company carried merit for developing its product while in conjunction with the co-branding the companies benefitted by creating a new market for their products.

The co-branding initiative has offered Apple and Nike an opportunity for a new market for their products. Co-branding has also helped to boost their sales as well as increase their customer bases. More also, Co-branding has helped the companies to signal a sense of quality to the consumers since both companies are trusted brands (Reader, n.d). Additionally, co-branding has helped the companies to produce a unique product from their respective competitors that none of the brands could produce singly (Prideaux, Moscardo & Laws, 2006). . Finally, co-branding has helped to take the competitiveness of the companies to a higher level.


Blackett, T., Boad, B., Interbrand (Firm), & Palgrave Connect (Online service). (1999).Co-branding: The science of alliance. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Macmillan Business.

Hesseldahl , A & Holmes, S. (2006). Apple and Nike, Running Mates. Bloomberg. Retrieved from

Prideaux, B., Moscardo, G., & Laws, E. (2006). Managing tourism and hospitality services: Theory and international applications. Wallingford: CABI.

Reader, C. (n.d). The Advantages & Disadvantages of Co-Branding. Demand Media. Retrieved from

Rouse, M. (2006). Co-branding. Retrieved from