« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 24, 2006

Co-Branded: Fake Drive Thru


Fake Drive Thru
Originally uploaded by uncleboatshoes.
Steve has uploaded several more photos from his still happening trip across the U.S. with artist/friend and artist friend Jake Longstreth. You can view Steve's documentation of the trip via his 'hello america goodbye world' tag.

Attempting to understand the branded landscape through the mediation of photography, painting, or any other art form is something that appeals to me, and I think such an approach can sometimes be more effective than the critical/theoretical one I must necessarily adopt for my research. Photography has the capacity to re-contextualize (not simply "de-contextualize") these brand oases. Photography can renovate the ungainly big box buildings and corporate AutoCAD architecture. It can assimilate the landscape without fully accepting the limited field of perception it offers us. Most importantly, the mediation affords a certain sense of detachment from the object itself, and with such critical distance already established, we can begin to engage with the branded landscape on our own terms.

Depicted here: the KFC/Pizza Hut/Taco Bell tri-brand.

Posted by at 10:57 PM |

Co-Branded: Uncle Beta Shoes

Steve Schroeder, blogger, artist, friend and proprietor of the States Rights brand, has been traipsing the country, criss-crossing the borders of those semi-autonomous principalities that are his music label's namesake. On the journey, he has encountered a handful of not-so-familiar co-brands, which he has generously shared with me periodically over email.

dunkin-baskin.jpg

In New York City, Steve observed a Dunkin' Donuts/31 Flavors co-brand, that I must confess to have never seen before. The double desserts to be had behind the safety doors of this establishment can only be imagined.

Previously, I had encouraged States Rights recording artist Adam Forkner to seek out a co-branded eating establishment on a random summer night in Portland, OR. Back then, I erroneously believed Baskin-Robbins and Togo's Eateries, Inc. to be part of the Yum! Brands family: in large part due to the fact that these establishments have also been known to aggressively co-brand.

Since then, I have learned that, in fact, Togo's, B-R and Dunkin' Donuts are not Yum! Brands brands, but rather part of the Dunkin' Brands, Inc family. This may have been obvious to any lay person, but it was news (exciting news!) to me.

In short, the Dunkin' Brands brands co-branding strategy is in part a competitive response to the Yum! Brands brands co-branding strategy, a practice initiated circa 2002 after Yum!'s acquisition of Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food.

goldstar-greatsteak.jpg

Gold Star Chili has locations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, and proudly touts its standing as "the first free-standing chili restaurant in Cincinatti." This particular franchise, however, stands together with The Great Steak & Potato Co..

It is fascinating that two such companies, chiefly local in scope and with most locations company-owned, would have such a co-branded location. As there is no official union of the two brands at the corporate level (as far as I can tell), this particular location must be the result of two enterprising franchisees (or one franchisee of both restaurants) looking to adopt the co-branded strategy that objectively seems to be benefitting larger competitors in the Yum! and/or Dunkin' families. The pairing does seem to be an obvious fit, and it would be interesting if down the road the two brands did merge. The possibility of franchisee co-branding actually leading to a merger at the corporate level is incredible, though of course such a possibility is mere speculation.

whitecastle-churchs.jpg

White Castle is another privately held company, and in this case none of its U.S. locations are franchised. The fact that each location is company owned necessitates some kind of agreement at the corporate level, to "authorize" such a White Castle/Church's Chicken co-brand.

Apparently, Church's Chicken items were once available at Harvey's, but can no longer be found on the menu. The Church's/White Castle combo seems to be a similar co-venture, though I can only speculate at this point as to the nature of the agreement.

According to Church's official website, the company previously merged with Popeye's Chicken under the AFC Enterprises umbrella, but was bought in 2004 by Arcapita, Inc., another Atlanta-based private equity firm. Since being bought by Arcapita, Church's has pledged to expand their menu and grow the chain from 1,500 restaurants to 2,500 restaurants by 2010.

Such a bold commitment to extending the brand into new markets perhaps explains their motivation to enter into co-branded partnerships with the aforementioned Harvey's, and afore-pictured White Castle.

Thanks Steve!

Posted by at 2:35 PM | | Comments (3)

August 20, 2006

links for 2006-08-20

Posted by at 8:18 AM |

August 18, 2006

Brand Name Litter

Perusing the Flickr™ photo sharing web station for photos tagged with co-branded, I came across the Brand Name Litter pool, with photos from forty members (mostly Canadian) of branded garbage.

The project is an interesting one, and I found my favorite images were those that seemed to uncannily imitate the flat, two-dimensional graphic design of contemporary advertising. They almost seem to become anti-ads, or anti-brands, as the context is such a far cry from the heavily idealized one of billboards and TV spots, where brands are free to aspire to Utopian heights. The photos depict the logical conclusion of brand consumption, its fallout, its consequences and its actual relationship to the real world.

It is possible to have a creative response to the creative branding efforts of advertising firms and brand managers. It is even possible to take existing brand identities and appropriate them in ways unintended by their creators.

175996381_2dbbb55bf2.jpg

Posted by at 9:30 PM |

August 17, 2006

What is Co-Branded?

I have yet to "determine" the answer to my research question, though I have circled around the topic of branding, co-branding and co-brandedness for several months now. I don't think I will ever make a definitive determination on the subject, but I would like to gain a better understanding of how co-branding, especially in advertising for movies, is both a product of our society and a reflection of it.

Raymond Williams has highlighted three distinct levels of culture:

There is the lived culture of a particular time and place, only fully accessible to those living in that time and place. There is the recorded culture, of every kind, from art to the most everyday facts: the culture of the period. There is also, as the factor connecting lived culture and period cultures, the culture of the selective tradition.

These three levels correspond to a social hierarchy of sorts; namely, the lived culture being one of everyday practice and "people," recorded culture being what people leave behind, and the "selective tradition" being administered by those in dominant positions of society, who deem appropriate for inclusion in our cultural history certain recorded practices to the exclusion of others.

In reading the business histories I have encountered during my research, I have developed the idea that this "selective tradition" is, according to themselves, crafted by captains of industry. They are not themselves the makers of our history, nor even are they solely responsible for their own successes. I think the realities of capitalist innovation are far more complex. However, these captains of industry nevertheless cast themselves in this role, as their own histories shamelessly trumpet each and every "lone genius" in the business world, the "first and very best" to accomplish any grand design or scheme, a forger of traditions to be handed down from CEO to CEO for decade upon decade, and on and on forever into the capitalist Utopia of our collective future tense.

In this regard, the business histories are highly uncritical. What's more, they transform by their nostalgia the creative feats of ad men and women acting outside the bounds of corporate policy, the unexpected uses made by consumers of their wares, and indeed even the insatiable appetite of a consuming public, into their own successes. Co-branding is not a thing "invented" by the executives at Yum! Brands, Inc., any more than the VW bus was "invented" to appeal to 1960s hippie counterculture. Yet, this argument is made, more or less, about Volkswagen, in discussions of the now famous ad campaign waged by the Doyle, Dane and Bernbach agency in the 1950s and 60s. The sentiment is paradoxically refrained in the writings of cultural critics such as Thomas Frank, who legitimize the "great man" rhetoric of business histories by wielding the things these men say about themselves ("We created the counterculture") in combat against those "cultural studies" intellectuals who might look for "emancipatory" messages in the commodities of popular culture. In so doing, Frank et al. unwittingly reinforce the authority of captains of industry to forge their "selective tradition."

My friend Kevin is a fan of Frank, and he and I had a discussion about this very thing the other day. Kevin's thoughts on Frank (and he has read much more of it than I have) are significantly more generous, as he sees the argument as a "cultural studies doesn't pay enough attention to economics" one, more than a "cultural studies vs. economics" one. In my reduction of the position, I certainly establish a binary, but ultimately I do still feel like hard core economic "new historicist" Marxism legitimates the tall tales of captains of industry by reading the tall tales as if they were legitimate history. From this point, the Marxist either rails against the tall tale, assuming it is a worthy foe; or, as in the case of Frank, uses the tall tale as a weapon against those engaged in a similar, but assumed to be ineffective, campaign of criticism.

Kevin thinks I am being to post-structural, and maybe that is true.

In the end, I am here, at the end of my summer data collection, with a lot of information, a lot of ideas, and a very strong desire to somehow come to terms with my initial assessment of Will Ferrell's Talladega Nights, and the orgy of consumerism, branding and co-branding that can be read on its surface. Is Ricky Bobby a Stephen Colbert? And does Stephen Colbert effectively or ineffectively critique contemporary conservative politics?

I want to say that Ferrell does a similar thing in "Talladega," that we are dealing with some "next level" political satire, beyond mere irony, post-irony or maybe even post-post-irony...

Those are my thoughts.

Posted by at 9:40 PM | | Comments (5)

August 16, 2006

links for 2006-08-16

Posted by at 8:20 AM |

August 14, 2006

links for 2006-08-14

Posted by at 8:22 AM |

August 13, 2006

links for 2006-08-13

Posted by at 8:18 AM |

August 12, 2006

Mattel® Barbie® Superman Returns™ presents: Lois Lane™

Thanks to Claire L. Evans for her co-branded detective work, exposing me--and by extension, the world--to this officially licensed Superman Returns™ "Lois Lane" action figure from Barbie®.

An internet search for the two brands turned up this article about the 2005 International Licensing Show. Apparently, the success of Batman Begins™ fueled considerable hype at the Licensing Show for Warner Bros. subsequent Superman film. Mattel®, originator of the Barbie® brand, signed on as "master toy licensee."

Further research turns up a press release reporting Mattel's second quarter 2006 financial results. It contains the following disclaimer:

Note: Forward-looking statements with respect to the financial condition, results of operations and business of the company are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those set forth in such statements. These include without limitation: the company's dependence on the timely development, manufacture, introduction and customer acceptance of new products; the seasonality of the toy business; customer concentration and pricing; significant changes in buying and payment patterns of major customers, including as a result of bankruptcy and store closures; adverse changes in general economic conditions in the U.S. and internationally, including adverse changes in the retail environment, employment and the stock market; order predictability and supply chain management; the impact of competition, including from private label toys, on revenues and margins; the supply and cost of raw materials (including oil and resin prices), components, employee benefits and various services; the effect of currency exchange rate fluctuations on reportable income; risks associated with acquisitions and mergers; the possibility of product recalls and related costs; risks associated with foreign operations; negative results of litigation, governmental proceedings or environmental matters; changes in laws and regulations; possible work stoppages, slowdowns or strikes; possible outbreaks of SARS, bird flu, or other diseases; political developments and the threat or occurrence of war or terrorist acts; the possibility of catastrophic events; the inherent risk of new initiatives; and other risks and uncertainties as may be detailed from time to time in the company's public announcements and SEC filings. This release contains a forward-looking statement about enhancements for the Barbie brand over the next year. Mattel does not update forward-looking statements and expressly disclaims any obligation to do so.

While the disclaimer is surely standard procedure, it is worth noting that Barbie® is the only line to get the "forward-looking statement" treatment. Over the past few years, Barbie® has faced increasing pressure from the wildly popular Bratz™ line; the Barbie® My Scene™ dolls can be seen as an attempt to re-capture some of that "cool" demographic, and last year Mattel® sent My Scene™ to Hollywood, where they were extras in a movie starring Lindsay Lohan.

In the slim chance that you still find this interesting, here is the "forward-looking statement" Mattel® is obliged to disclaim:

"We are pleased with our second quarter results. As expected, we benefited from our summer entertainment toy lines based on the CARS and Superman(TM) movies, as well as the newest American Girl Place in Los Angeles," said Robert A. Eckert, chairman and chief executive officer of Mattel. "We also experienced the second consecutive quarter of growth in the U.S. for the Barbie brand. While I am pleased with Barbie's progress thus far, we are still in the process of implementing a variety of enhancements for the brand over the next year."

Despite the aggressive brand extension undertaken by Mattel®/Barbie®, worldwide gross sales of the doll were down 1% over the second quarter. I think this once proud brand is really in danger of being seen as "old-fashioned," which maybe isn't a bad thing. The Barbie® Superman Returns™ doll is one of many awkward attempts to update the brand's image; yet "Superman" is one of the most old-fashioned super hero brands of all time. Which maybe explains why 1) the pairing is actually perfect, and 2) Superman Returns™ didn't do so well at the box office.

I have elsewhere placed Mattel and Barbie in the larger narrative of branding, advertising and toys in America.

I can only apologize for having so many links in this post, but I feel compelled to also add that Mattel will team with Walden Media, the production company founded by conservative education reformer--and former contributer to the National Review--Michael Flaherty, to bring the American Girl® brand to the big screen.

Terrific.

Posted by at 10:56 AM |

August 11, 2006

links for 2006-08-11

Posted by at 8:21 AM |

August 10, 2006

Co-Branded: Godzilla vs. Taco Bell

Perhaps you remember this spot from 1998, featuring the Taco Bell dog searching for Godzilla and calling, "Here lizard, lizard, lizard..."

The campaign was part of a much larger promotional effort by Taco Bell and its parent company, Tricon, in support of the film, which apparently ended in heartache, or at least led to a wholesale unloading of promotional premiums to then Viacom-owned Blockbuster video.

Blockbuster has since severed its ties with Viacom, and Tricon is now Yum! Brands, Inc.. The 1998 Godzilla film was spun-off by Tristar into a successful animated series.

What's more, Doritos® Brand, a subsidiary of Frito-Lay®, producers of Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Snack Mix, has just recently begun running ads that feature footage from the 1998 Godzilla movie.

It all makes sense.

Posted by at 2:06 PM | | Comments (1)

links for 2006-08-10

Posted by at 8:25 AM |

August 9, 2006

links for 2006-08-09

Posted by at 8:24 AM |

August 8, 2006

A note on theoretical frameworks

I increasingly have the suspicion that intense adherents to specific, rigorous theoretical frameworks are not acting in their best interests. By "best interests" I mean general benefit; by "theoretical frameworks" I mean something some guy once wrote or said. If "theoretical frameworks" is an unfamiliar concept to you, surely the notion of taking something someone more brilliant than you once wrote or said, and peppering those sentiments in amongst the pithy observations you yourself have made, strikes a certain chord. "Theoretical frameworks" is a more intense version of that. Anything with an "-ism" is, once was, or soon will be a theoretical framework. Also any term incorporating a proper name (e.g. Marxian, Freudian, Lacanian, Barthesian, Hegelian, ad infinitum...).

The observations of these thinkers are truly great, and I write that completely without irony. It is really amazing to read the things Marx wrote some two hundred years ago, and to read how those things were taken up by Marxists of later generations, debated in academic circles as autonomous "concepts," ultimately "posted" by post-Marxists; and yet still these things Marx wrote maintain a vibrancy that keeps them illuminating even to this day. It is the same of the other theoretical frameworks.

What I have noticed is the tendency of certain "Marxists"--and I mean here especially students, graduate or otherwise, teachers and armchair academics, not necessarily the Raymond Williams's and the Fred Jameson's, though I guess they are as well implicated--to commit so whole-heartedly to the world-view of "Marxism" that the world-view thus inscribed is no longer in their best interests. That is to say, Why keep refiguring the world as an oppressive one, in the style of Marx, when it is not in your best interests to think of the world in the style of Marx?

At the outset, this proposition reeks of plain defeatism. But there is a deeper idea I am trying to get at: that is, Why would anyone believe so strongly in any of these theoretical frameworks to begin with? A theoretical framework is an abstract grid, laid over the world; it prescribes, at least partially, the world it spits back at you. The obsessive impulse to lay this or that grid inexhaustibly over the world demonstrates a desire to master the world with this or that grid, and, in this respect, the adherent to theoretical frameworks implicitly accepts and endorses the world-view his or her theoretical framework posits. Which is to say that "Marxism" is a tainted concept, if only in so far as it habitually asserts and re-asserts the inferior position of the "Marxist" in relation to the dominant culture. It is the same of the other theoretical frameworks.

This does not seem to be in our best interests.

Posted by at 6:38 PM | | Comments (2)

links for 2006-08-08

Posted by at 8:27 AM | | Comments (2)

August 7, 2006

links for 2006-08-07

Posted by at 8:22 AM |

August 6, 2006

links for 2006-08-06

Posted by at 8:20 AM |

August 5, 2006

Co-Branding and Co-Spokesmen: A Case Study

With M. Ritchey away for the weekend performing her music as Manta(r), I have been just taking it real deep with organization of my downloaded source materials, categorization of co-branded ads, and general analysis of "types."

One of these interesting types occurs when brands with fully developed, strong brand spokesmen (Taco Bell, KFC, Revlon, Burger King, et al.) enter into co-branded relationships with readily identifiable film characters. In these spots, the brand spokesman typically interacts with the film character in a way that presumes to be funny, and often is.

I have realized that one good way to communicate this information would be to post the actual ads, and box.net happens to have an online storage service capable of just that. So, here is a public set I am hosting from my Box.net account. The set epitomizes the co-spokesman mode of co-branded address, and I am particularly interested in the Halle Berry/Revlon/007: Die Another Day spot, as Berry is both spokesman for Revlon and new "Bond girl," and acts as both in the ad. Another really incredible spot is the Tricon #1, which features all three spokesmen for KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, forming a parody of the original Star Wars poster.

Posted by at 11:13 PM |

Quotable Potables: Fredric Jameson

"It is safest to grasp the concept of the postmodern as an attempt to think the present historically in an age that has forgotten how to think historically in the first place. In that case, it either "expresses" some deeper irrepressible historical impulse (in however distorted a fashion) or effectively "represses" and diverts it, depending on the side of the ambiguity you happen to favor. Postmodernism, postmodern consciousness, may then amount to not much more than theorizing its own condition of possibility, which consists primarily in the sheer enumeration of changes and modifications. Modernism also thought compulsively about the New and tried to watch its coming into being (inventing for that purpose the registering and inscription devices akin to historical time-lapse photography), but the postmodern looks for breaks, for events rather than new worlds, for the telltale instant after which it is no longer the same; for the "When-it-all-changed" [i.e. Stacey Peralta moment], as Gibson puts it, or, better still, for shifts and irrevocable changes in the representation of things and the way they change."

Fredric Jameson
Postmodernism; Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism

Posted by at 3:41 PM |

Co-Branded: KFC Long John Silver's

While setting up the Flickr™ badge you now see in the right sidebar, I came across this photograph taken by Morton Fox in Windsor, NY, and tagged with "cobranded".

Architecture has a way of illustrating even the most complex social paradigms in surprisingly efficient terms, and I think this building really captures what is weird, or different, about co-branding. How might a subject inhabit or engage with the space this building defines? What are the implications for fast-food dining, and what is the effect on the respective brands involved? Isn't this a literal representation of the way we, as consumers, "consume" brands?

Fred Jameson has written a chapter on postmodern vs. modern architecture, and he actually uses the metaphor of "consuming" space, of fast food, etc. The writing is appropriately dense, but I think it is something I should grapple with in the course of determining the implications of co-branding on ourselves and our entertainment.

Thanks to Morton for the picture, and thanks to Yum! Brands, Inc. for initiating the practice and further complicating our suburban and urban big box landscapes.

Posted by at 2:36 PM |

links for 2006-08-05

Posted by at 8:23 AM |

August 4, 2006

links for 2006-08-04

Posted by at 8:21 AM |

August 3, 2006

Branded Components and Cereal Tie-Ins


Jack + Coke
Originally uploaded by kmikeym.

Tim and Johnny = BFF
Originally uploaded by kmikeym.
A couple great new co-branded sightings from K. Mike Merrill today. The first two epitomize the "branded component" style of advertising: "America's favorite cola" mixed with Jack Daniel's Brand Old no. 7 Whiskey; Tim's Cascade Style Potato Chips with Johnny's Seasoning Salt.



Johnny Depp Loves Corn Pops
Originally uploaded by kmikeym.

Rice Crispies w/ Orlando Bloom
Originally uploaded by kmikeym.
The second set of pictures are evidence of the Kellogg's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest promotion. For some, it is debatable as to whether or not these types of promotions can truly be called "co-branded," as they typically involve only package advertising in support of the film; in this case also a Pirates of the Caribbean Breakfast Cereal. The cereal may be co-branded, or it might be simply a licensed product. Or, to further complicate things, marketing theorists might refer to licensing relationships as co-branded partnerships. I don't think it really matters, whether something "is" or "isn't" co-branded, so long as it presents a conceptual dilemma of some kind.

Posted by at 7:45 PM |

Cheetos® Brand Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Cheese Flavored Snacks

munchies.JPG As loyal readers of M. Ritchey's blog may or may not be aware, she had the pleasure of attending an all-day Jeopardy taping yesterday, featuring the pregnant sister of a good friend, who was allegedly a fierce competitor and super good (smart) sport; the results of her gaming will air the week of September 11th (how will you remember?), check your local listings.

However, something else magical happened yesterday, as M. encountered in an area vending machine new Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® Snack Mix, from Frito-Lay®. Several aspects of this new and exciting snack immediately strike a chord: first, the name, Munchies™ Flamin' Hot®. That is a good name.

And what delectable entities reside under the broad canopy of this glorious umbrella term? What diversity of treats can possibly be housed in such an unassuming snack bag? There are Sunchips® Salsa Picante Flavored Multigrain Snacks (from Frito-Lay®). There are Doritos® Brand Salsa Flavored Tortilla Chips (from Frito-Lay®). Rold Gold® Brand Classic Tiny Twists Pretzels (from Frito-Lay®). How can tiny pretzel twists already be "classic"?

And my favorite snack is this: Cheetos® Brand Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Cheese Flavored Snacks.

That is the official name of the snack.

This bag really underscores the inevitable confusion that results from excessive branding. "Flamin' Hot" is a ® ? "Munchies" is ™ ? How can there be two registered names in the name of a single snack? And this is the official full name of the Munchies™ snack itself: Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Snack Mix With Cheetos® Brand Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Cheese Flavored Snacks, Rold Gold® Brand Classic Tiny Twists Pretzels, Doritos® Brand Salsa Flavored Tortilla Chips, and Sunchips® Salsa Picante Flavored Multigrain Snacks, from Frito-Lay®.

That is the official name of the snack.

One can think of each brand flavor as a component of Frito-Lay®, but then we already have both Fritos® Brand Corn Chips and Lay's® Brand Potato Chips. Do the components comprising Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® Snack Mix "add up" to Frito-Lay®, or Munchies™, or both? In this case, I think it is difficult to call the individual brands "components" (in the way Intel® microchips are components in Apple computers), but certainly they do not stand alone either.

What's more! The snack has a "NEW LOOK! SAME GREAT TASTE!". Is the "new look" co-brandedness? I think what we have in this case is an analog to the Yum! Brands co-branded location strategy: multiple brands, operated by the same company, reinforcing one another. It still baffles me why this sort of situation would be ideal for any consumer. When just eating Sunchips® or Doritos® (in any of their many flavors) is not enough, you pick up a bag of Munchies™ Flamin' Hot®, and get them all at once? There seems to me to be more going on than just that. We desire the brands we love, and we desire them all at once. Frito-Lay® combines these brands for us, puts them all together on one bag, and then we desire the bag. The collection of brands (think DVD collection, record collection, stamp collection) becomes the consumable/collectible object itself. So even the act of collecting, combining and consuming brands is done for us, by the company that brings us the brands in the first place.

I feel like I am writing in circles, but it is hard to discuss these things and really do them justice. Maybe Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® isn't something worth putting a lot of thought into, but then there is something alarming, and bizarre, about the product, and our easy acceptance of its message.

Posted by at 6:31 PM | | Comments (3)

links for 2006-08-03

Posted by at 8:26 AM | | Comments (3)

August 2, 2006

MySpace (News Corp.) and Burger King

I am still trying to figure out how to make a cool del.icio.us feed a part of this blog. Most recently, I have attempted to set up a del.icio.us daily blog posting, of course unsuccessfully. I am subscribing to several RSS feeds, and it would be nice to pass on this information--especially updates from PR Newswire about recent promotional partnerships, etc.--to the many, many readers of this blog.

In the meantime, liberal music organizer and religion student/pundit Kevin Erickson has sent me an ad banner culled from the pages of MySpace, shown here:

24_new_60719.jpg

Clicking on the ad directs a user to the Burger King MySpace profile, where free episodes of Fox and FX network television shows are offered up as "Gifts from the King." The partnership is interesting, because, as far as I know, Burger King is not in any way affiliated with News Corp, the Rupert Murdoch-led media conglomerate that runs Fox, billions of other media channels, and, most recently, has acquired MySpace. Burger King is thus the equivalent of an advertiser advertising on a network, yet it is also promoting the network in a way not entirely dissimilar from its previous in-store toy and sweepstakes promotions.

Burger King's alliance with Fox in this instance is thoroughly co-branded (who is promoting who?), and signals the QSR's hearty alignment with a new "corporate" MySpace: the company-controlled, News Corp. version. This might provide us with a glimpse of the future of MySpace. As they become more popular, social networking sites become more lucrative to advertisers, giving corporations an incentive to regulate and control them. Of course, this may not be a bad thing for most of the teens and/or young adults and/or grown adults using the website, as evidenced by Burger King's 88,434 MySpace friends (I have 148).

I saved a handful of links related to this/these new development(s) in the MySpace universe, but I can't get my del.icio.us sidebar or daily links entry to work. When it works, everything will be exactly great.

Posted by at 3:02 PM |

August 1, 2006

Branded + Branded = Co-Branded

Yum! I had the realization recently that I actually haven't been paying as much attention to the specific phenomenon of co-branding in recent weeks. I've been reading some theoretical texts, film history books covering the convergence of cinema and TV in the late 1950s, and looking at a lot of electronic press kits from the 1990s. Which is not to say I have been ignoring my topic completely. I have just been thinking about larger pictures in lieu of the smaller picture presented by co-branding.

So, how small is this picture, really? This morning I got the idea to catalog all the co-branded spots I have been able to collect and view, and was surprised to learn that I had surpassed the 100 impressions mark. Of those 100+, about 90 are spots I was able to download from the AdLand archive and other online sources, so I have acquired those commercials permanently. The sample may not be large enough to write a whole book on co-branding, or a PhD. dissertation, but it is potentially enough material for an honors thesis, or, eventually, an exhaustive expansion of the Wikipedia article on brand alliances.

Here are the highlights from my collection, in the form of a 1998 era internet thumbnail chart of random stills. The brand identities come through, somehow, and it is interesting to see all the stills together. This is my research project.

bkdarthking30.jpg cingularspiderman.jpg