Sunday, October 21, 2012

What We Can Learn From The Union Of Nicki Minaj And Justin Bieber


I can't see tongues getting involved. And I've no idea what they'd find to talk about. Heck, they probably don't even have each other's phone numbers.

But some music biz marketing person has decided to put them together, and their record will go to No.1 for sure. 

Each is broadening their fan base. And each is becoming more interesting by being associated with the other.

I'm old enough to remember Mick Jagger and David Bowie getting together to do Dancing In The Street, which at the time was thrilling, even though the video was a bit pants. 

In more recent times, we've seen very cool collaborations between the likes of Nick Cave and P.J. Harvey, Bjork and Thom Yorke, The Black Keys and Mos Def.

In film too, there's always a frisson when you hear that Kylie is appearing in some crazy indie movie, or Bill Murray is making another film with Wes Anderson.

So why don't we see more collaborations between brands?

Advertising is predicated on novelty. Every car brand ever advertised is "The NEW xxxx." That is, unless it's "The all-new xxxx." 

In a world of basically parity products, we're always looking for something new and interesting to say.

Even new packaging is sometimes enough to hang an ad off.

Usually there's nothing.

And yet the obvious idea, of dimensionalising a brand by associating it with a brand from a different field, rarely happens.

When it does, it's usually awesome. I mean, when Ice Cream Snickers came out, my head practically exploded. Before my teeth fell out, that is.

But in a way... that's quite an obvious one, because they're both foods. And the ice cream wasn't even a brand.

Apple and Nike did, er, quite well with Nike+

So why don't we see more of that? Why not this?



Okay, that probably wouldn't happen.

But shouldn't a camera company hook up with a tourist board? Or a men's fashion brand support Barnardo's?

Apparently there is a website out there called Brand Dating.

They are already doing stuff like charity partnerships, co-branded products, joint advertising, etc.

But I reckon it's something we could all think more about, for our own brands.

 

8 comments:

john p woods said...

What about a Matel/Hasbro Scrabble and Heinz Alphabet Spaghetti tie-in?

Scamp said...

Love it!

George said...

I always thought fashion meets charity was an awesome combination. Luta Clothing are the only brand I know of, and it's a business model that seems pretty smart.

Anonymous said...

Does the product[red] thing fit into this? Would that count as a brand date or is that more of a straight-up charity collaboration?

Scamp said...

I guess collaboration IS dating. I didn't particularly think [red] worked very well, but it's a good example of what I'm talking about, and at least they tried.

john p woods said...

Matel's Barbie has a new cruise ship accessory and Royal Caribbean have zoned in on it with special offers.

Neasa Cunniffe said...

It's an interesting thought.I wonder is it because it's hard to find an equal partnership where both brands gain as much as the other?

Nike and Apple are both such cool brands and were in non-competing categories (mostly) that you can see how both would gain. Maybe other brands find it harder to find a good match.


When McDonalds started to sell Innocent smoothies in some of their branches, it was a big win for McDonalds, but it really damaged my perception of Innocent.

I can also imagine most brands over-estimate their appeal to potential partners. Brands like Virgin and Google probably get lots of offers from lower status brands that they choose to reject.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Google + Coke do a nice little thing that won at Cannes last year?

If we can get the Catholic Church to partner with Durex, millions of choir boys would be recturnally grateful.