Thoughts on Co-Branded Research: Steer Your Own Ship, Not Theirs

Photo by Jonathan Smith @jpsmithuga

A colleague of mine recently reached out to me for some perspective on the value of co-branded research, and from a brand perspective, I think it’s a topic worth dissecting.

There’s quite a bit of co-branded research out there, and given my current role and perspective, I’m often curious about the motivations for developing it—particularly at a time when brands are increasingly focused on the ROI of their marketing initiatives.

To be honest, I’m somewhat conflicted by the prospect of joint research. When there are two names on a project, proving value is notably more complicated than when there’s just one.

As a reader, I’m a big fan, simply because I know that I’m going to get a more thorough, well-rounded piece than if a single entity is involved. But from a brand perspective, especially if a brand is well known, I question the end benefit of sharing the limelight.

Here’s why: ROI is tough to share.

Think about it. We know that most companies don’t devote copious time and resources toward something that isn’t connected to a key business objective. So if a company’s primary goal in producing thought leadership is to either build its reputation or drive revenue, partnering with another entity makes it more difficult to succeed on either front.

Size can sometimes be a reason to partner up. Small companies and start-ups could, for example, gain significant exposure through joint projects with large companies that are well known in their industry or the general marketplace. But a scenario like this raises questions about the end benefit for the well-known company.

As a content producer, I’m in favor of driving my own ship. I’m sure there are situations where joint projects make sense and might not get bogged down by the factors that come up when two brands are involved, but those aren’t going to be the majority.

But for the sake of this article, let’s look at a few key considerations that marketers need to be mindful of before they take on a joint research project:

● Visual identity. The end product can’t be produced in two visual identities. Joint projects are typically designed according to just one brand’s identity. Said another way, the report looks like it comes from Company X, but the cover includes logos for both Company X and Company Y. So, in reality, one of the two gets far less visual recognition.

● Distribution may be limited. Given the visual identity consideration, Company Y may not want to use its organic channels to promote content that looks like it was produced by Company X. For example, some companies won’t host content on their websites that’s branded in another company’s visual identity.

● Lead generation. Joint research typically leverages data and knowledge from two entities, which may present difficulties when it comes time to determine which company should follow up on the leads that a campaign generates. And if a report is only available on Company X’s website, Company Y will be dependent on Company X to pass along the leads that are relevant for its business.

● Content review and approval. Depending on the company, producing thought leadership can be laborious in terms of internal review and approval. For joint projects, that process doubles and often becomes more complex and lengthier.

Regardless of project, scope or parties involved, however, I would stress that brands stop and ask one key question before starting anything: “What exactly do you want to happen?” After answering that one simple question, brands can identify the course that makes the most sense to get the results that meet their primary goal. But if the answer to the question is either drive reputation or revenue, a joint thought leadership project might not be the right option.