Mark Ritson writing in Marketing Magazine (3 September 08) showcased the tie-up between Penguin Books and Match.com in a co-branding deal. Coincidently this week I am working on a client who has a paid-for newsletter for a niche audience.  They approached me asking for ways to increase subscription and advertising revenues. My answer, in part, includes co-branding.

And so the challenge for you is to find out whether this is an appropriate tool for business development for your company.

Situations where collaborative marketing and co-branding may be appropriate include:

• you have a good database of customers in a clear market niche or particular geography or demographic profile  
• there is little cross-over between the current customer base of either brand
• each brand can benefit from the positioning and reputation of the other
• profits from the resultant new business can be shared while both improve brand equity

Ritson suggests that if your brand fulfils these criteria, the subsequent co-branding is newsworthy and so may additionally gain you free PR and press coverage. In the case of my client, a paid-for newsletter will hopefully benefit from an association with a free online discussion forum: those who are used to gossiping for free can read some well-reported news, which in turn will fuel the discussion forum and draw in more participants. And so when considering your business write two short lists

• who are my customers?
• what is my brand positioning?

Then read your industry magazines and online news sources and list brands who you think might make good partners for co-branding associations with you. Consider first who their customers are and what their brand positioning is and see if you can make a cogent argument for a tie-up between you.  Remember that if you initiate the discussions, it's up to you to set out the reasons in the most persuasive way possible. Remember, the deal has to work well for both parties, a stronger / weaker party deal will probably fall down; similarly one where one brand is more likely to profit than the other probably won't work in the long term unless the terms of profit sharing reflect that imbalance.