ABSTRACT

Purpose: This paper examines the performance and risk of brand alliances by investigating the market value of brand alliances through the analysis of investors’ response, and look into the different reactions of the stock market to brand alliance-type in terms of co-branding and joint-promotion, as well as into the potential different effects in the contexts of B to B versus B to C. Brand alliances, whereby two or more brands are jointly presented to the consumer, have been investigated extensively. The importance of brand alliances is emphasized by two factors: (1) brands are considered critical elements in business-to-business marketing settings; and (2) firms use brand alliances due to the trading costs and investment necessary to buy brands, the increasingly higher costs of launching a new brand onto the market, the high failure rates in new brand launches and brand extensions, the competitive pressures around product launches and diffusion, and the limitations imposed on the extension of a brand by its own identity. Consequently, brand alliances have exploded over recent years. As indicated later, by accomplishing the purpose of this research we fill a gap in the literature as most of the research on brand alliances revolves around consumers’ perspective.

Methodology/Approach: The methodology followed is based on the event study method. First, the event study estimates the excess returns of share prices generated by events that were unanticipated by the market. To this end, we estimate the market model and the subsequent abnormal returns. To examine the impact of the publication of a brand alliance announcement on the share prices of the company, we use the cumulative abnormal returns calculated over k days of the event window for 55 announcements. In the second step, we analyze the returns of the different brand alliances. In particular, the abnormal returns are used as dependent variable in a regression analysis, wherein the central explanatory variable is brand alliance type (co-branding vs joint promotion). Finally, the third stage of the methodology analyzes the change in the variance of returns between the periods before and after the brand alliance announcements.

Findings: The results show that brand alliance announcements generate positive abnormal returns, which support the hypothesis that brand alliance announcements are positively related to company stock returns. In particular, we observe that the reactions to brand alliances are spread over the event window. In fact, the window (−5,+5) produces returns that stand at 1.6%, which is the greatest abnormal return over the five days around the publication date. The economic impact of a cumulative return of 1.6% in eleven days is tantamount to annual returns of 69.33%. Considering that the average market value of the sample is €17,494 million, it represents an increase of €279 million for the sample stocks on the period (−5,+5). The regression analysis shows that the coefficients of the variable “co-branding” are positive and significant, which supports the hypothesis that co-branding presents higher abnormal returns than joint promotion. However, no differential effect are found between B to B versus B to C paradigms. The results obtained present an increase in the variance of the share prices after the alliance announcement date, which supports the hypothesis that the variance of the company stock returns is positively associated to announcements of brand alliances.

Research Implications: The key implication of the measurement of the market value of brand alliances is that research should be reoriented toward a better understanding of the role of marketing in the value creation of a company. Instead of just concentrating on marketing research into consumer behavior, more emphasis should be given to the core company processes that create shareholder value.

Practical Implications: The managerial implications of the specific results obtained are the following: the result that companies increase their market value when they implement brand alliance strategies, leads to a better ken of the way alliance activities can be managed when dealing with other organizations. In this way, finding a partner to form a brand alliance with could be a useful objective in terms of firm performance. Moreover, the results show that co-branding presents higher abnormal returns than joint promotion, which suggests that co-branding is the most valuable strategic decision (or long-term decision) for companies, as it implies the simultaneous participation of two or more brands in a single product. In this way, deciding on whether a short- or long-term branding strategy is pursued turns to be fundamental.

Originality/Value/Contribution of the paper: The literature has analyzed the consequences of brand alliance, which looks at each partner’s brand attitude after the alliance, the brand equity of the constituent brands after the alliance, and the impact of the allied brand on the evaluation of the host brand. These studies have focused on the area of consumer behavior; that is, by measuring consumers´ attitudes and evaluation. Still, the measurement of dimensions reflecting the other side of the relationship, i.e. the firm, via brand image and equity is critical. Nevertheless, the examination of the impact of brand alliances on the partner company performance and risk has received little attention, despite the fact that “brand perceptions of companies’ products spill over to investment decisions in the market for companies’ stock”.

摘要

目的：本文通过对投资者反应的分析来调查品牌联盟的市场价值，从而研究品牌联盟的绩效和风险，并从联合品牌和联合品牌的角度研究股票市场对品牌联盟类型的不同反应-促销，以及在B对B与B对C的背景下可能产生的不同影响。对品牌联盟（将两个或多个品牌共同呈现给消费者的品牌联盟）进行了广泛的研究。品牌联盟的重要性由两个因素强调：（1）品牌被认为是企业对企业营销环境中的关键要素；（2）由于购买品牌所需的交易成本和投资，将新品牌投放市场的成本越来越高，公司使用品牌联盟。新品牌发布和品牌扩展中的高失败率，产品发布和扩散周围的竞争压力，以及因其自身身份而对品牌扩展造成的限制。因此，近年来品牌联盟激增。如后面所述，通过实现本研究的目的，我们填补了文献中的空白，因为大多数关于品牌联盟的研究都是围绕消费者的观点展开的。

方法论/方法：遵循的方法论是基于事件研究方法的。首先，事件研究估计了市场未预料到的事件所产生的股票价格的超额收益。为此，我们估计了市场模型和随后的异常收益。为了检查品牌联盟公告的发布对公司股价的影响，我们使用了在k之上计算的累积异常收益。事件窗口的天数，用于55条公告。在第二步中，我们分析了不同品牌联盟的回报。特别是，异常收益在回归分析中用作因变量，其中主要的解释变量是品牌联盟类型（联合品牌与联合促销）。最后，该方法的第三阶段分析了品牌联盟公告前后各时期之间收益差异的变化。

发现：结果表明，品牌联盟公告产生正的异常收益，这支持了品牌联盟公告与公司股票收益正相关的假设。尤其是，我们观察到，对品牌联盟的反应遍布事件窗口。实际上，窗口（−5，+ 5）产生的回报率为1.6％，这是发布日期前后五天内的最大异常回报。11天累计回报率为1.6％的经济影响相当于69.33％的年回报率。考虑到样本的平均市场价值为174.94亿欧元，这意味着该时期（-5，+ 5）的样本股票增加了2.79亿欧元。回归分析表明，变量“联合品牌”的系数为正且显着，这支持了联合品牌比联合促销具有更高的异常收益这一假设。但是，在B到B与B到C范式之间没有发现差异作用。获得的结果表明，在联盟宣布日期之后，股价的变化有所增加，这支持了以下假设：公司股票收益的变化与品牌联盟的宣布呈正相关。

研究意义：衡量品牌联盟市场价值的关键意义在于研究应重新定位，以更好地理解营销在公司价值创造中的作用。不仅要专注于针对消费者行为的市场研究，还应该更加重视创造股东价值的核心公司流程。

实际影响：获得的特定结果的管理含义如下：公司在实施品牌联盟战略时增加了其市场价值，导致与其他组织打交道时更好地管理联盟活动的方式的结果。这样，就公司绩效而言，寻找合作伙伴与之建立品牌联盟可能是一个有用的目标。此外，结果表明，与联合促销相比，联合品牌具有更高的异常收益，这表明联合品牌是公司最有价值的战略决策（或长期决策），因为这意味着两个或多个品牌同时参与在单个产品中。这样，决定采用短期还是长期品牌战略就变得至关重要。

论文的原创性/价值/贡献：文献分析了品牌联盟的后果，它考察了联盟后每个合作伙伴的品牌态度，联盟后组成品牌的品牌资产以及联盟品牌对主机品牌评估的影响。这些研究集中在消费者行为领域。也就是说，通过测量消费者的态度和评估。尽管如此，通过品牌形象和资产来衡量反映关系另一面（即公司）的维度的度量仍然至关重要。但是，尽管“品牌对公司产品的认知会渗透到公司股票市场的投资决策中”，但对品牌联盟对合作伙伴公司的绩效和风险的影响的检验却很少受到关注。