Nissan, Star Wars and Brand Partnerships: A lesson on why “because we can” is not enough
A couple of weeks ago, I stumbled across one of those great moments in branding that you only see once, maybe twice in your lifetime:
The Nissan Rogue: Rogue One Star Wars Limited Edition.
The Nissan Rogue: Rogue One Star Wars Limited Edition
image source: Nissan USA
WOW, RIGHT?
MINDBLOWN?
NO?
YEAH, NOT SO GREAT.
Brand tie ups like this, sometimes make a lot of sense. When the addition of a branded ingredient into a product and its marketing actually helps to make the core product more interesting, more appealing or more clear for consumers, it’s a smart way to go. That’s why some brands are built to be ingredients, helping other brands succeed. For decades, Intel has prospered by using its brands as ingredients to drive choice amongst buyers of computer systems. Gore-Tex is known for charging a premium if garment manufacturers want to use the Gore-Tex brand in their marketing. Those make sense because both Intel and the computer OEMs, and Gore-Tex and the outdoor apparel makers benefit from their respective relationships.
But, for the Nissan Rogue: Rogue One Star Wars Limited Edition we’re looking at a whole different kind of brand oops. This kind of tie up, one we more readily expect with McDonalds Happy Meals, just doesn’t make sense. Sure, for Disney there’s the ability to extend the footprint of the Rogue One story franchise, but I’m not even convinced that the audience for the Nissan Rogue happens to share anything with the audience for Rogue One beyond their ability to recognize the word “Rogue”. For Nissan, creating a “special edition” of the Rogue, a rather mediocre offering in a rather mediocre field surely makes the 2017 Nissan Rogue seem a bit less boring. What it doesn’t do is make a Rogue better at what it’s supposed to do. Unless, the car’s purpose is to help you realize that no, having a 2017 Nissan Rogue: Rogue One Star Wars Limited Edition featuring black trim and roof rails, and various Star Wars logos stuck on in places that will eventually become embarrassing and will not help you impress your friends. (It’s not.)
COBRANDING, INGREDIENT BRANDING OR BRAND PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT DECISIONS TO BE ENTERED INTO LIGHTLY. THEY NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, RATIONAL AND STRESS-TESTED DECISIONS THAT ENSURE THAT THE EFFORT WILL (AT A MINIMUM) BENEFIT YOUR BRAND IN A LASTING, WORTHWHILE FASHION.
What gets me so upset about this is that it shows just how lazy marketing teams can be. Cobranding, ingredient branding or brand partnerships are not decisions to be entered into lightly. They need to be considered, rational and stress-tested decisions that ensure that the effort will (at a minimum) benefit your brand in a lasting, worthwhile fashion. Some products (Happy Meals) benefit from short term flings that drive trial and purchase, but then can be exited quickly. Others require more consideration because the time horizons last well into the future. Ideally, both brands should benefit. The benefit could take the form of a payment, it could be gaining equity in areas where your brand is lacking. But convenience and availability is should not be a driving factor in the decision.
Gore-Tex and Patagonia are brands that make sense together, each enhancing the other's equity
image source: Patagonia