What happens when a design lighting company meets a great fashion brand?
This is what happened between Foscarini, a lighting design company of Venice and one of the worldwide renowned fashion giants, Diesel. The collaboration agreement for the Home Collection furniture and lifestyle project by Diesel is one of the major successful cases of adoption of the co-branding strategy. From this partnership a collection of more than 40 lamps has been created for an ironic, transgressive and eclectic public of the unique lifestyle of Diesel. Experimentation and new forms are the basis of the partnership that has allowed both brands to speak different languages.
But what is co-branding?
Co-branding is nothing more than a strategic alliance between two or more known brands that are presented together to the consumer, giving rise to a new offer or an offer perceived as different from the consumer thanks to the presence of a second brand. The concept of co-branding is closely linked to the value of the brand and it allows, in fact, to obtain numerous advantages such as: expand the brand range, increase the reputation of the brand, enter new markets and conquer new market segments also through new communication channels. Moreover, this strategy can allow the renewal of the corporate image as well as the knowledge of new technologies and, potentially, reduce costs through economies of scale and risk sharing.
However, the decision to adopt the co-branding strategy must be meditated by the company taking into consideration thepotential marketing risks. In fact, negative implications are not excluded if this strategy results in partnerships that are not able to add value. Among these, the possibility of giving rise to associations that may damage the image of the brand if one of the brands involved is perceived by the consumer as having no expected quality standards. Another potential risk is the so-called “halo effect” that occurs when one of the two brands obscures the other creating a feeling of confusion in the consumer’s mind; and finally, it may happen that the consumer perceives an incompatibility between the symbolic value of the two brands involved.