Ingredient Branding of Industrial Goods

member targeting of Industrial Goods A typeface study of two distinct several(predicate) automotive providers Waldemar Pfoertsch1 / Johannes Rid2 / Christian Linder3 Abstract This constitution concerns portion shuffleing more specifically, constituent mark for industrial goods. Although research in ingredient mark has been quite intensive in the bea of unshak fit moving consumer goods, considerably less research has been automobileried out for industrial goods. In this paper, the authors provide insight into whether successful ingredient staining canister be transferred to industries where it has non been a commonality phenomenon automotive suppliers.Two major companies in the automotive industry ar analyzed in this paper Autoliv, a major player in political machine-safety supplies and equipment worry seat belts and airbags, and Bosch, makers of a large variety of car comp starnts, like diesel and gasoline injection systems, braking components (e. g. ABS and ESP) , and starting motors and alternators. The findings include enormous potential for B2B companies in the field of ingredient disgraceing. Car suppliers, for instance, find rarely used the option of bloting their ingredients at the finished product.The authors give a historical perspective, show e. g. that ABS braking system, invented by German supplier Bosch would ingest been a perfect candidate for cross offing to the utmost customer. In the purchasing decision of potential car buyers, the ingredient ABS, provided by a sozzled ingredient manufacturer (e. g. Bosch) could have led to a preference of buying a specific car, and in the end, added to the suppliers composition and r make upue. 1. Leveraging the stigmatise We now live in a world where consumers receive thousands of impressions and meats every day.Ever change magnitude competition sustains it more difficult for a message to r severally the audience and target group, with the consequence that it drop deads harder for a consumer to differentiate among markings. Furthermore, as competitive advantages and innovations are copied at a higher speed, products and services become more alike. In this kind of environment, it is important for producers to find a position for their product or service in order to focus and clarify the attributes that make their product unique to the customer.In response to this current business environment, research and best practice show that more and more firms have come to the realization that one of their virtually(prenominal) priceless as desexualises is the set name associated with their products or services. (Keller,2003, Pfoertsch/Mueller, 2006). Producers understand that powerful targets are beneficial to the go with Brands, therefore, are genuine assets and, like other forms of asset, they can appreciate considerably as a result of careful management and phylogeny. (Blackett, in Murphy, 1989).Kotler/Pfoetsch (2006) have proved that B2B marque offer s strong competitive advantages, by implementing a holistic brand approach companies can accelerate and increase their overall success compared to companies that do not go the path of B2B branding. Brands should be seen in a holistic manner where all activities of a familiarity should be integrated to get the maximum advantage (Kotler/Pfoertsch, 2006). Strategic success baron be achieved finished leveraging the brand, because the brand is one of the most strategic and worthy assets a firm owns.Possibilities to leverage the brand include line extensions, stretching the brand vertically, brand extensions, and co-branding (Pfoertsch/Schmid, 2005). Co-branding means that two brands form an alliance in one or several areas that lead to a sore product mark with both brands. Ingredient branding, on the other hand, is a brand that is solely used as a component of a branded article (Riezebos, 2003). According to noris (1992), there are two relevant criterias that must be fulfilled for ingredient branding. First, the component can only be bought and consumed by consumers as a dowry of the branded article.Second, the brand name of the component is only used for such an ingredient (and not for normal branded articles as well). 2. Can you ingredient brand where branding is not a common phenomenon? The reason companies start to co-operate is due to technological and psychological changes of the business environment. There are two reasons why this occurs (Uggla, 2000) First, applied science and new distribution patterns open up new possibilities for cooperation where brand extension and brand alliances become more kindle from a strategic point of view.Second, consumers timber for riskiness reduction, and brand extension and brand alliances might be the right strategies to reduce consumer risk. Strategies to meet the demands of a changing world are co-branding and ingredient branding. There are some good examples of ingredient branding of durable goods on the marke t, such as Shimano as a component supplier of cycles, and Intel in the computer industry. Intel, for instance, positioned itself to be the heart and soul of personal computers.The scheme was to create a brand, and it spurted for PCs (Karolefski, 2001). In other industries that produce industrial goods, like the car industry, ingredient branding has not been a common strategy. The primary promontory that guides us through this paper is Is it possible for industrial goods industry like the automotive industry to adopt an ingredient brand when ingredient branding is not a common phenomenon? 3. Analyzing with real world data In this paper, real world data from two different companies were collected and compared.A qualitative approach was chosen, which enables us to analyze, understand and interpret the situation rather than giving standardized results. The aim was to understand the strategy of ingredient branding as a whole. Research was mainly based on collecting data through inte rviews with decision makers (respondent interviews), which implies that the interviews are of a strategic nature. A content study approach gives the possibility of getting deeper insight into a veritable problem or situation and to as definite how interviewees perceive their situations.The presented cases are Bosch and Autoliv, two companies representing the car SUPPLIER manufacturing industries. Since this study aims to garter understand why and under what circumstances companies rent an ingredient brand strategy, the case study approach was seen as the most appropriate. The Robert Bosch GmbH, Stuttgart offers a wide range of products to the market, both as a supplier to different kinds of manufactures, as well as a producer of consumer goods. It had 2007 a dollar volume of 46,7 billion and employs over 271,000 people in about 50 countries.Today, 70% of Bosch turnover is from the car industry it is a pioneer in the automotive supplier industry, with products that include ABS and ESP, injection systems, brakes, starter motors and alternators. Another major car supplier, Autoliv Inc. is headquartered in Stockholm, Sweden, the result of a merger between Autoliv of Sweden, founded in 1953, and the American high society self-propelling Safety Production, started in 1997. Autoliv of Sweden was the inventor of seat belts, which first came onto the market in 1956, and developed the first airbag for cars in 1980.Autoliv has about 30% market share in its segment on a worldwide basis, and employs about 6,000 people, with sales in 2004 of $ 5 billion. 4. Leveraging the brand for industrial goods If a company realizes that it cannot capitalize on its own brand alone, it might choose to capitalize on another brand. This implies that company A wants to borrow connective of a brand from company B. It fol first bases that company B in turn must also want to have something from A, since B must also benefit from its association with A.Generally speaking, three prerequis ites must be fulfilled before company A and B collaborate 1) Both companies must have sufficient brand legality, otherwise they would not be able to borrow out any associations (Keller, 2003) 2) company A and B should have a common basis of associations, meaning that A and Bs identity should have a certain degree of fit (Riezebos, 2003) and 3) that company A should be able to offer associations which B does not have and vice versa (Park/Jun/Shocker, 1996). (1) satisfactory brand equity The first prerequisite in terms of brand identity is that both brands have ufficiently strong and unique associations that both of the brands (ingredient and host brand) on an individual basis have enough brand equity (Keller, 2003, p. 362). In this study, the question is whether Autoliv and Bosch each offer enough brand equity so that they could be potentially interesting associates for a host brand seeking to leverage its brand identity. The brand equity of Bosch can be rated as high. Bosch has successfully leveraged its own brand with brand extensions and line extensions. Bosch, in its beginnings, was a producer of car parts like starting motors and alternators.Over time, Bosch began to capitalize and leverage its own brand by extending their product range, including the growth and production of power tools, mobile telephones, security systems, and industrial packing machines. The other company in this case study, the car safety producer Autoliv, is a well-known(a) brand among B2B customers. Autoliv wants to work together with the best automotive companies in the field of car safety The identity of Autoliv is a company that always has the technical leading in the area of car safety equipment like airbags and seat belts.Autoliv strives to always be the first with technical development in their area. (Mats Odman, Autoliv). (2) Common basis of associations The arcsecond prerequisite is that the companies working together should have a certain degree of similarity in th eir brand identity (Riezebos, 2003). According to Keller (2003), the logical fit (image and product) between the two brands is the most important requirement for a successful coaction between two brands.That means a) that both companies brand identities (host and ingredient brand) should be in correspondence with each other, and b) that the ingredient offers complementary brand associations. Main associations connected with Bosch are feature and innovation. Most car manufacturers have these associations as well, therefore, a common basis of associations does exist. Bosch representatives say that products from Bosch contribute key values to the brand such as a promise from Bosch about product quality. Bosch products are also advanced in the car industry which is reflected in their slogan We bring innovation, e. . Bosch was first to introduce engine injection systems with 1600 bar pressure (Stefan Seiberth, Bosch). On the negative side, Bosch has the problem of being a supplier to virtually every car manufacturer in the world, and these car manufacturers have widely different brand identities (e. g. the brand identity of BMW is totally different than that of Volkswagen). Autoliv can be more precise in common associations. Autoliv aims to develop projects with car manufacturers that are striving for the latest technology in car safety, most likely with car manufacturers in the premium segment.A logical fit exists here because Autoliv has the same aim of technical leadership as the car manufacturers they choose to work together with. (3) Offering complementary associations Finally, cooperation between brands will only work if the partner brand offers complementary associations, which the host brand does not have, and vice versa (Park/Jun/Shocker, 1996). The concept of brand identity system is primeval here (Aaker, 1996), and includes the following definition Brand identity is a unique set of brand associations that the brand strategist desires to create or ma intain.These associations represent what the brand stands for (Aaker, 1996). Brand identity consists of twelve dimensions organized around four perspectives the brand-as-product (product scope, product attributes, quality/value, uses, users, country of origin), brand-as-organization (organizational attributes, local versus global), brand-as-person (brand personality, brand-customer relationships), and brand-as-symbol (visual imagery/metaphors and brand heritage). Though not all perspectives might be appropriate for every brand, it should help firms to consider different brand elements to be able to enrich and differentiate their brand identity.The brand identity type is structured into loading and extended identity. The mettle identity is the timeless and central essence of the brand. Therefore, it will most likely remain constant while the brand is stretched to new markets and products. The extended identity consists of brand identity elements, which complete the core identity, such as a slogan, sub-brands, and the brand personality (e. g. reliable, American, German engineering, friendly). pic get word 1 Aakers fashion model for brand identity modified with results from the case studyTo be able to identify and analyze what the case companies Bosch and Autoliv have to offer to their partners (host brands) in terms of desirable attributes, the above figure based on Aakers (1996) model summarizes the most important advantages of the examined cases. The reader should note that this paper is based on a study from the suppliers perspective (partner brand). Therefore, spill-over effects which the case companies might receive from the producer side are not examined. Bosch offers associations which the partner brand possibly does not have.Attributes like German engineering, reliable and innovation could be easily used and benefited from by car manufacturer building middle and lower-class cars. Autolivs contribution to collaboration is technical leadership. One c ould say that Autoliv is a premium brand in their field of competence, thus offering strong associations in quality. To summarize, we can conclude that brand equity is one of the most, if not the most, valuable assets a company has. The companys brand identity is the most important factor in creating or pushing the companys brand equity.Companys management should continuously try to leverage the brands identity. Our case companies Bosch and Autoliv prove that leveraging is fully possible in the area of industrial goods 5. Fit between brands So far, the authors have analyzed whether the examined companies and the industrial goods sector could offer enough brand equity and possibilities to leverage. In other words, up until this part of the analysis, we have looked upon whether our case companies would be interesting partners for the producers in their industries, and if the case companies fulfill the prerequisites to make co-branding successful.Now lets look closer into the fit of br ands and the field of brand association base. Image transfer What does theory say about the transferring process? Riezebos (2003) defines image transfer through the term deductive inference, which is the deduction of results/conclusions from brand images already in existence. Deductive inference is important when associations from one brand or entity is carried over to another brand/entity.For the transfer process, a source, which consumers must have certain associations with in terms of where it comes from, and a target (inductive inference, meaning that the associations load the image of the target) is needed. In summary, image transfer is a positive transfer from source to target, and withal a positive feedback from target to source (Riezebos, 2003). For transferring associations, it is both necessary that source and target have something in common (e. g. common brand name), and that the target evokes certain brand associations.Ingredient branding and co-branding are brand-stret ching strategies based on image transfer. Critical success factors for image transfer are 1) the sources direct of brand-added value, 2) how the products are related to each other (target and source should only to a minor degree differ from each other), 3) the target group similarity (Park, 1991), and 4) family resemblance (different packages sharing the same facings). Brand association base Simonin and Ruth (1998) stress the fit between brands (and between the products), which significantly affects the attitudes towards the alliance.Leading researchers agree that companies should integrate the brands they cooperate with within their overall brand architecture. The authors have used the brand association base described by Uggla (2003) to examine the question of fit. The result can be seen in the figure below where the association base model has been modified with the findings from the case studies. The association base is a relevant tool for this purpose to organize brand alliance s and the brand structure from a leader brand perspective and intention.The association base describes how brands can be organized together. The model contains four different core components leader brand associations, partner brand associations, institutional associations and the customers brand image. In a cooperation of brands, the advantage for the leading brand is that it adds values and positive associations to the product. The partner brand gets nettle to the distributions channels leading to the end-consumer market. The collaboration between the leader brand and the partner will determine an association base.The customer will evaluate the perceived equity from the association base and shape a specific brand image (Uggla, 2001). Figure 2 Modified brand association base (Uggla, 2003) Bosch, as a car part producer with German quality and innovation as their base of associations, could definitely contribute to the car manufacturers base of associations as for Mercedes-Benz Endur ing Passion. Autoliv has valuable associations for a potential host brand in terms of car safety. On the other hand, Autoliv does not build brand value, Autoliv would be a weaker partner brand tally to the collaboration theory.The partner brand should help to expand the base of associations of the leader brand, and the partner brands core identity should lead into the direction the leader brand wants to go to, and the direction should be defined by the leader brand. The partner brand should also help to strengthen the base of associations while bringing in exclusivity and differentiation. Once more, Bosch has proven to be a valuable partner when tested against this theory. Autoliv stands weaker in this respect because the company is not actively building brand equity towards the final customer.To summarize, Uggla (2003) suggests that a less familiar leader brand should be connected to a strong partner brand with high brand familiarity. A lesser-known and/or unfamiliar car manufactu rer (e. g. Asian car manufacturers who want to enter new markets impertinent Asia) using Bosch in-car equipment, for example, would be a positive example of this guideline. Functional and emotional incentives for brand collaboration A way of defining the motives for collaboration is given by Uggla (2001). He suggests a model based on a matrix, which is divided into emotional and structural benefits, to be able to understand why brands engage in co-operation.The model is based upon Aakers theory about the brands identity, but focuses on how the components of the value proposition are divided and shared among partners. The model divides the brands engaged in co-operation to a leader brand and (one or more) partner brand(s). The leader brand can choose to develop own associations or choose to capitalize on other brands associations. The partner brands contribution should be to expand to the leader brands base of associations and add decisive physical and/or emotional attributes.Two d ifferent incentives for collaboration are functional and emotional benefits (Uggla, 2001). An example for a functional alliance is Intel because Intel contributes with a product (the central processing unit for a computer) for which they have core competence. With emotional incentives, the aim of the leader brand is to endorse reputation (Cooke, 2000), which is the aim to get a better image and/or quality association with the help of the partner brand. On the other hand, the partner brand can profit from the leader brands functional attributes. pic Figure 3 Applied incentive model from leader and partner brand perspectiveThe authors have modified this model in respect to the case analysis (see Fig. 3). As mentioned above, a brand that wants to lend associations to another brand strong must have strong incentives that can be either functional or emotional. For car producers, working together with Bosch could gain core competence and expand the value proposition (e. g. Bosch as a tech nology leader in ESP, ABS and diesel technology). This is according to the theory (Uggla, 2003), which says that collaboration based on functional incentives implies that the one brand contributes with core competence.Bosch would also profit from brand collaboration through shared cost in R&D. Bosch might expand the legitimate territory for their products if the car manufactures allow Bosch to brand their ingredients. Accentuating emotional attributes are also a possibility for Bosch It is our strategy to position Bosch as an innovative, international, modern company (Stefan Seiberth, Bosch). A car producer might also want to work together with Autoliv based on functional motives because Autoliv has core competency and is a leading manufacturer of car safety equipment (intelligent seat belts, irbags, etc. ). The focus for Autoliv is choosing partners who have a commitment to actively work with the development of safety in cars. As it is the case with Bosch, Autoliv would gain from c ollaborations by sharing costs for R&D. stirred incentives are also important for the company and play a certain role in choosing partners for a new project, according to Autoliv. The image of the car manufacturer is important therefore, the company strives to share development with car manufacturers in the premium segment (Mats Odman, Autoliv).To summarize, according to the incentive model, both Bosch and Autoliv offer sufficient incentives, both from partner brand as well as from the leader brand perspective. 6. Results conveyance of titlering successful ingredient branding to the car industry The authors have taken into account the findings from the secondary sources of Moon (2002), Aaker (1996), and Keller (2003), all of which present a deeper analysis of ingredient branding strategies, and have compared these findings with the information from the car suppliers Bosch and Autoliv.We first want to emphasize that successful companies invest in and put the brand first. Moreover, the most effective strategy for a company is to become a brand-driven organization (Kotler/Pfoertsch, 2006). These companies not only differentiate themselves through their technology, but also through their level of service and through all employees working effectively towards the success of the brand, and thus, the company. In addition, ingredient branding is a form of multi-stage branding (Baumgarth, 2001). Therefore, the whole value chain, from (ingredient) producer to the final customer, needs to be considered.In the case of Bosch or Autoliv, the retailer, the producer of the final good, and the final customer need to be connected. This implies that all downstream markets need to be part of the strategy. Hillyer/Tikoo proved that consumers are cognitive misers (Hillyer/Tikoo, 1995). This means that consumers simply trust that a well-known manufacturer would not allow itself to collaborate with a low quality supplier. This has been proven with the success of Intel. Customers sim ply transferred the decision making to the computer manufacturers by trusting that the manufacturers have chosen the right microprocessor supplier, Intel.In terms of transferring these findings to the car industry, Autoliv could bill into the shoes of Intel. Autoliv could act as a retrieval cue (Hillyer/Tikoo, 1995) for potential car buyers, where the car buyer trusts the car manufacturer to have picked a true(predicate) brand in the area of car safety. Also, for a successful ingredient branding strategy, it is crucial that the right opportunity in time be identified. If we look at the success of Intel, often regarded as one of the most successful ingredient branders, one aspect that is different between Intel and the automotive industry is the time of the ingredient branding.The computer industry matured during an era when computer sales were strongly on the rise accompanied by a period of increasing sensitivity to the value of branding (Cook, 2003). The car industry is already mature, therefore, the timing is not optimal for an ingredient brand strategy It would be great to iterate Intels success in the automotive industry, but its 80 years too late to do it (Klaus Deller, Bosch Group, in Cook, 2003). The authors want to stress though, that even the car industry will offer windows of opportunities, especially when supplier come up with decisive inventions and innovations.Another factor to consider is that In contrast to the situation like Intel, where producers were actively looking for co-operations, car manufacturers often want to control their brand image and are currently not actively seeking brand collaboration with supplier. This fact makes the ingredient branding strategy even more complicated to implement. A solution to this would be for suppliers like Autoliv and Bosch to adopt a pull strategy by creating consumer demand.The pull principle is also the basic underlying concept that is best suited for ingredient branding, meaning that the ingredie nt manufacturer directly addresses the final customer (Pfoertsch/Schmid, 2005). Bosch is, through its automotive advertising campaigns in 2006 and 2007, on its way to utilizing such a strategy. Building strong association could even be implement into the car industry. The OEMs in the car industry could effectively promote their associations, which in the case of Bosch could be braking safety (ABS, ESP), and passenger safety (Airbags), in the case of Autoliv.The authors conclude that it is entirely possible for auto suppliers to show an ingredient branding strategy. Bosch and Autoliv proved to have substantial possibilities for ingredient branding. This conclusion can be emaciated through congruence of findings of the empirical research with theory. It is vital to the success of the strategy, though, that the whole organization not only strives for the same objective, but also consistently delivers the brand promise. Only with this quality thinking in the organization, can an ingr edient succeed in the final industrial good.And not to forget it is time-consuming to create and establish a brand. Therefore, the overall strategy needs to be a long-term engagement in the marketing and branding investment. 7. Suggestions for future research This paper has examined the question of ingredient branding as a viable strategy for producers of industrial goods. In particular, we tested automotive suppliers Autoliv and Bosch (Norris, 1992 Keller, 2003 Riezebos, 2003). Since the scope of this paper could only cover the fundamental principle of this question, it would be interesting to go deeper into other aspects.A question for further research would be to find out how a model of the appropriateness of ingredient branding could be derived. Further research could cover even more industry segments in B2B marketing, thereby giving deeper insights into why certain industries have seen companies with successful ingredient branding, while others have not. Additionally, to dis cuss questions about an implementation strategy for ingredient branding needs more insight and research, including a possible guideline for companies that have decided to brand its ingredient.Examples from other industries could also be examined since the implementation process is very complex and many aspects need to be considered. Literature Aaker, D. A. , and Joachimsthaler, E. , Brand leading, The Fress Press, New York, 2000 Aaker, D. A. , and Keller, K. L. , Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions, Journal of trade, 54, January 1990, pp. 27-41 Aaker, D. A. , Building Strong Brands, The Free Press, New York, 1996 Baumgarth, C. , Ingredient Branding. Begriff und theoretische Begrundung, in Esch, F. -R. Moderne Markenfuhrung, Wiesbaden 2001, p. 17-343 Blackett, T and Boad, B Co-branding, the Science Of Alliance, Macmillan Business, Interbrand, England, 1999 Blackett, T. , The genius of Brands, in Murphy, John, Brand Valuation, Hutchinson Business Books, 1989, pp. 1-11. Cook, B. , Can Bosch spark its OEM brand? , www. brandchannel. com, 2003 Cooke, S. , and Ryan, P. , Brand Alliances From Reputation Endorsement to Collaboration on Core Competencies, Irish Marketing Review, Vol. 13, 2000, p. 36-41 Hillyer, C. , and Tikoo, S. , nub of Cobranding on Consumer Product Evaluations, Advances in Consumer Research, Volume 22, 1995 Kapferer, J. -N. Reinventing the Brand, Kogan Page, London, 2001 Kapferer, J. -N. , Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London, 1992 Karolefski, John, Intel Outside, www. brandchannel. com, 2001 Keller, K. L. , Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, January 1993, pp. 1-29 Keller, K. L. , Strategic Brand Management building, measuring, and managing brand equity, Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London, 1998 Keller, K. L. , Strategic Brand Management building, measuring, and managing brand equity, Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited, London, second edition, 2003 Kotl er, P. et al. , Principles of Marketing, Prentice Hall Europe, 1996 Kotler, P. , and Pfoertsch, W. , B2B Brand Management, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2006 McCarthy, M. S. , and Norris, D. G. , Improving Competitive Position victimisation Branded Ingredients, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 8, Nr. 4, 1999, pp. 267-285 Moon, Y. , Inside Intel Inside, Harvard Business Review, October 15, 2002 Norris, Donald G. , Ingredient Branding A Strategy Option with Multiple Beneficiaries, The Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 3, 1992 Park, C. W. , Jun, S.Y. , and Shocker, A. D. , Composite Brand Alliances An Investigation of Extension and Feedback Effects, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 33, 4, 1996, pp. 453-466 Pfoertsch, W. , and Schmid, M. , B2B-Markenmanagement Konzepte Methoden Fallbeispiele, Franz Vahlen, Munich, 2005 Pfoertsch, W. , and Mueller, J. Die Marke in der Marke Bedeutung und Macht des Ingredient Branding, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg 2006 Riezebos, Rik , Brand Management A suppositious and Practical Approach, Pearson Education Limited, 2003 Simonin, B. L. , and Ruth, J. A. Is the Company known by the Company it keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 35, February 1998, pp. 30-42 Uggla, H. , The Brand sleeper Base A Model for Strategically Leveraging Partner Brand Equity, Unpublished Paper, 2003 Uggla, Henrik, Managing the Brand-Association Base, Akademitryck AB, Edsbruk, 2000 Uggla, H. , Organisation av varumarken, Liber Ekonomi, Malmo, 2001 Uggla, H. , Varumarkesarkitektur strategi, teori och kritik, Liber Ekonomi, Malmo. 001 1 Waldemar Pfoertsch Professor of Business Marketing CEIBS China Europe International Business School Shanghai Hongfeng Road Shanghai 201206, China Tel +86(21) 28905662 emailprotected edu and Professor of International Business Pforzheim University Tiefenbronnerstrasse 65 75175 Pforzheim, Germany 2 Johannes Rid, N ational gross revenue Manager, Pirelli Tyre Nordic AB, Gustavslundsvagen 141, P. O. Box 14147, 16714 Bromma, Stockholm, Sweden,Tel +46. 8. 6220850, Fax +46. 8. 7550941, johannes. emailprotected et 3 Christian Linder Research Assistant Pforzheim Business School Pforzheim University Tiefenbronnerstrasse 65 75175 Pforzheim, Germany Tel +49 7231 28-6466, christian. emailprotected de Bosch Expand the legitimate territory Emotional incentives Functional incentives Bosch Expand value proposition, modify brand personality Bosch Engineering core com Autoliv Core competence in car petence safety Partner brand perspective Leader brand perspective Bosch Cost efficiency (R&D), Short cut to awareness and distribution. Autoliv Cost efficiency (R&D)Institutional Associations Image Transfer Identity Transfer Customers image of the brand Leader Brand Associations e. g. Mercedes-Benz Enduring Passion pic*fgyzS? z? iO? i? i? i? hM8(emailprotectedzhuTCJOJ4QJ5J6emailprotectedzhuT5? 6? CJOJ7QJ8? ? J9emailprotectedzhuT5? CJ,OJ10QJ11J12aJ,mHsHemailprotectedzhuT6? OJ13QJ14J15emailprotectedzhuT0J6? OJ16QJ17UpicJ18emailprotectedzhuT5? CJ,OJ19QJ20J21aJ,emailprotectedzhuTCJ OJ22QJ23? J24aJ mHsH. emailprotectedzhuT5? CJ OJ25QJ26? Partner Brand Associations Bosch Innovation, quality Autoliv Safety Association base fit