Do you know who you are getting into bed with?
As we finally reach the day of the UK general election, after what seems to many as the most drawn out campaign in living memory, all the talk is around the nature of the coalition which may form the government after 8 May.
The challenge for the party leaders is one which many of those looking after brand communications will have encountered – “exactly who am I dealing with and how does their behaviour reflect upon me?” Brand partnerships are a key weapon in the marketing armoury – they can bring new audiences, create more in depth conversations and add credibility. However, like the political danger of embracing another party over which a would-be PM has little control, partnerships present risks for the custodians of a brand.
These risks are arguably even greater for brands than politicians. Politicians can argue, admittedly not always totally convincingly, that they make decisions for the good of the country – something which consumer brands can’t usually claim. At their heart, the core objectives behind any brand partnerships are commercial ones.
We all know the old adage – “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” In today’s climate of ever greater scrutiny and increasing demands for transparency, the converse provides a valuable lesson. In a brand partnership, the enemy of your new friend can become your own enemy.
In fact, it can feel like your brand becomes the bigger target than the original one. Take the case of Lego’s partnership with Shell. Last year the much loved toy brand became a target for Greenpeace, which successfully transferred the focus of consumers from the issue of Shell’s operations to the fact that promotional Lego items were available at Shell petrol stations and the Shell logo appeared on some Lego products. As indeed it had done for many decades. The campaign led to Lego announcing that it would end the relationship at the end of the existing contract.
Lego would have been on somewhat familiar ground – previously the brand’s promotional partnership with the Sun had been targeted by campaigners protesting against the paper’s page 3. Whether as a result or not, the toy brand decided to not renew the agreement.
These examples highlight both the potential danger inherent in a brand partnership and the fact that the ground can shift underneath them. Activity which most consumers and other stakeholders viewed as appropriate in the past may no longer be seen in the same light. So it is vital to not only weigh up the pros and cons of a potential partner before entering into an agreement, but to ensure that you continue to do so all the way through a relationship and that you are clear about how to get out of it if you need to.
These are considerations which are no doubt going to be front of mind for our political leaders over the next few days. Though a question they may also be asking is “In the mind of the voter, are we Lego, or are we Shell?”