Co-branding has emerged as an attractive management option in the past three decades because of the growing realisation that it can exploit companies' existing brand equities. Despite extensive research into branding, existing knowledge about co-branding remains relatively limited. This article summarises the findings in the literature with regard to how co-branding strategies may benefit (or harm) both managers and end users, the mechanisms by which brands share their associations, and the conditions in which consumers might evaluate a co-branded product favourably (or unfavourably). To further our understanding of the factors that lead to successful co-branding arrangements, this article explores examples of successful and unsuccessful co-branding initiatives and introduces a value exchange framework to demonstrate how value is created within these co-branding arrangements. This research also defines the scope of co-branding by identifying the areas of agreement, disagreement and boundary conditions within this domain. Finally, an agenda for further research is set forth based on priorities found in the existing literature.

Today's increasingly digital environment has revolutionized how businesses operate and led to a fundamental shift with regard to how companies and consumers interact with one another. For companies, the ability to collect abundant, detailed information about consumers, competitors, and the market overall has affected all aspects of the marketing mix. According to Adidas CEO, Kasper Rørsted, "Digital touches our company at every point along the value stream-how we design, develop, manufacture, and sell our products" (Adidas, 2017). To successfully compete in this digital era, practitioners must be digitally savvy and analytically proficient (Grewal, Roggeveen, & Shankaranaraynan, 2015), requiring a shift in the knowledge and skills desired by employers (Schlee & Karns, 2017). Despite ongoing efforts by colleges and universities to update their curricula, the scale and speed of innovation has led to a substantial shortage of digitally equipped marketers (Royle & Laing, 2014). In a recent survey and assessment of nearly 1,000 marketers in U.S. and U.K. companies, only 8% were able to demonstrate entrylevel digital marketing skill, while more than two thirds recognized their need to improve digital marketing skills in order to remain competent in their current roles (O'Brien, 2016). The report points at the role of universities in contributing to this skills gap, noting, "Traditional marketers are struggling to upskill, marketing graduates have studied a syllabus that doesn't include digital techniques, and digital professionals have inconsistent abilities due to a lack of standardized skills training" (p. 19). While some have argued that a university's marketing education should be measured on its theoretical outcomes (Petkus, 2007) or that a professional training focus should only be considered by some schools (Schibrowsky, Peltier, & Boyt, 2002), the high demands for professionally relevant, technical knowledge are forcing universities to reconsider their approach to training as an existential matter of relevancy (Schlee & Harich, 2010) as more corporations like Google and IBM make headlines for eliminating college degree requirements for hiring (Glassdoor, 2018). Recognizing the potential inadequacy of the existing marketing curricula, Wymbs (2011) first proposed a framework for redesigning curricula to include digital marketing. More recently, Rohm, Stefl, and Saint Clair (2018) argue for the 823849J MDXXX10.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract