As I have been reading a wide variety of sociological, business, media and theoretical things to try and get a grasp on what, exactly, co-branding "means," I thought it might be fun to juxtapose the previous things I wrote about Bernard Simonin and Julie Ruth's article on brand alliances in the Journal of Marketing Research, with Clifford Geertz's notorious essay on the Balinese cockfight.

The Geertz essay describes in great detail ("thick description") the various rules of the cockfight in Bali, the social practices articulated in such cockfights, and the comparisons that can be made between cockfight and Bali culture as a whole. Geertz concludes from his close reading that "societies, like lives, contain their own interpretations. One has only to learn how to gain access to them." Ideally, co-branded advertising spots might provide some interpretation of our own society; or at least that is my hope.

Putting aside Geertz's lively and astonishing prose, here are the maxims he derives from his observations of cockfights:

THE MORE A MATCH IS...

1. Between near status equals (and/or personal enemies)
2. Between high status individuals

THE DEEPER THE MATCH.

THE DEEPER THE MATCH...

1. The closer the identification of cock and man (or, more properly, the deeper the match the more the man will advance his best, most closely-identified-with cock).
2. The finer the cocks involved and the more exactly they will be matched.
3. The greater the emotion that will be involved and the more the general absorption in the match.
4. The higher the individual bets center and outside, the shorter the outside bet odds will tend to be, and the more betting there will be overall.
5. The less an "economic" and the more a "status" view of gaming will be involved, and the "soldier" the citizens who will be gaming.

Geertz uses such observations of the cockfight to challenge Bentham's concept of "deep play," as advanced in The Theory of Legislation. Bentham argues that play with inordinately high stakes is irrational and immoral, as it typically does not benefit either party, and should be made illegal.

Geertz takes on the more interesting challenge of determining why, if it is so irrational, men engage in such high stakes play. For the Balinese, "the explanation lies in the fact that in such play, money is less a measure of utility, had or expected, than it is a symbol of moral import, perceived or imposed." That is to say the "deep play" of the Balinese cockfight is a game of status, more so than money; its benefits not so easily quantifiable as mere profit.

Which brings us back to brand alliances. Are the successes and failures of co-branding to be measured solely by profit? One nice thing about the Simonin and Ruth essay is that it focuses not on monetary gains tallied post-co-branding, but on consumer recall (brand awareness) and brand loyalty. Co-branding, then, does seem to be a "status game" in the cockfight sense: one in which the stakes are extremely high; and, as Simonin and Ruth show, the most "high status" of the brands involved actually has the least to gain in terms of increased brand impressions.

It seems to me that Bentham would view co-branding as an irrational corporate strategy, yet it is one that more and more companies are adopting.