Brand Alliances and Stock Reactions

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”.