This is a DELL ad… Right?
Then why does it have such clear Intel branding in the bottom right corner?
To understand this strategy, we journey all the way back to 1991, when Intel worked with IBM and other computer manufacturers to launch what was then called the Intel Inside Co-Op Program. The gist? Intel would take a percentage of their revenue from chip sales and use it to match advertising funds by their computer manufacturing partners. In other words, IBM buys a million dollars worth of Intel chips, Intel takes a percentage of that million dollar sale and adds it to IBM’s marketing dollars (for campaigns that specifically use the Intel logo and tagline).
This is one of the best, longest, and most well known examples of co-op marketing. But if you really stop to think about it, we see this kind of strategy all the time. Verizon will run ads that essentially look like iPhone commercials, just as Target may run ads for Twizzlers. These partnerships are logical as there is a clear purchasing relationship between these partners.
So what’s the results? Two major brands reap the benefit of an advertisement, even though they’re only footing half the bill. Which leads me to ask, why doesn’t this happen more often? Why does this happen almost exclusively for brands that are partners? Why can’t two random brands, with no business connection, find a way to split the bill for an advertisement that equally supports them both?
Take this example from Geico.
Keep in mind how unique (weird) most Geico ads are. The random characters and stories. All Geico ever seems to want to accomplish is staying top of mind, and perhaps to remind consumers about the idea of saving 15%. In this spot they found a way to carve out a few seconds to promote Helzberg Diamonds. It’s brief. Probably not as valuable to Helzberg as a full 30s spot, but there is undeniably some value to Helzberg in showing up in this video.
The results? Geico runs an ad that is as “Geico” focused or as “insurance focused as any other ad they run (caveman, camel, etc). Helzberg basically gets the brand lift of a mini-commercial, let’s say 15% the value of running a full spot. So we’re basically getting 115% the value of a normal TV ad, but we’re still only paying for one commercial, because Geico and Helzberg can find a way to split the bill.
So why isn’t this more common? No seriously. This is not rhetorical. I do not understand why brands don’t pursue this more aggressively.
Remember how every cereal commercial use to end with the tagline “...is part of this balanced breakfast.” And they showed this type of image?
What stops that cereal company from highlighting a particular brand of orange juice? Why not reach out to the American Egg Board and get eggs more prominently featured in this “balanced breakfast?” And what kind of coffee is that? We don’t know… and that means a wasted opportunity for this cereal brand.
You’re selling video games? Why not call up Doritos and Mountain Dew? You’ve got sunglasses to sell and your commercial features young men golfing… Why not have them swinging a TaylorMade driver or wearing Nike shoes? It can be subtle. It can still be 90% about your brand or product
In fact, you can make virtually the exact creative you were going to run originally, and only ask for a partner to contribute 5% or 10% of the cost of the ad to get their brand featured. Like I said, this cereal company was going to show orange juice either way.
Maybe it's scary to trust another company. Maybe it’s complicated to figure out exactly how the creative will work or how much each party should pay. But in a world where every advertiser I’ve ever worked with is constantly trying to negotiate freebies, bonus impressions, and discounts, is it not worth trying to find a way stop paying 100% of your advertising costs on your own? Tell me that’s not worth a little discomfort, a little complication, and a little risk...