IP: Ensuring brand protection and expansion with affinity branding
Affinity marketing is thought to have begun in the late 1970s when the American Automobile Association (AAA) partnered with MasterCard to offer AAA members a branded credit card with lower rates and special privileges.
July 09, 2013 at 04:00 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the fifth of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. Read parts one, two, three and four.
Today's article discusses affinity branding arrangements. Like co-branding, covered in the last article, affinity branding involves an agreement between two businesses to share in the branding of a product or service. Unlike co-branding, affinity branding typically involves an organization that adds value to its existing members or donors by offering products and services at special member rates.
Affinity groups typically include membership organizations or associations, and nonprofits and charities. “Affinities” can also take the form of any characteristic, ethnicity, hobby, background, profession, lifestyle or life-stage that unites a group of individuals, and affinity groups can thus also take the form of companies that cater to specific demographics. Affinity marketing is a way to induce customers to connect with a brand on an emotional level.
Affinity marketing is thought to have begun in the late 1970s when the American Automobile Association (AAA) partnered with MasterCard to offer AAA members a branded credit card with lower rates and special privileges. Affinity credit card programs boomed in the 1990s when credit card companies partnered with charities and sports teams to provide branded credit cards. Organizations offering such cards benefited from increased brand loyalty and awareness, not to mention increased revenues. Credit card companies benefited from access to the existing distribution channels of the organization.
Members of organizations are always looking for more incentives to maintain a membership, which makes them one of the most successful affinity groups targeted by affinity campaigns. Today, many affinity programs are organized around the use of data and customer contact lists. Typical affinity partners include airlines, hotels, banks, supermarkets and gas stations, but programs can involve virtually any product or service, as they are highly customizable.
Although the benefits to affinity programs are many, as with any arrangement that could impact the value and reputation of your brand, you need to enter into them with caution. We recommend that, ahead of exploring any affinity opportunities, companies develop their own branding guidelines that set forth objective criteria to be evaluated in connection with any affinity branding opportunity.
Because affinity programs, arguably more than any other licensing or co-branding arrangement, go to the emotional heart of brand value, we recommend organizations carefully consider
- Whether the affinity relationship complements and enhances the current image of the organization
- Whether the opportunity is good enough to motivate your members to change their behavior
- Whether the arrangement is financially beneficial
Finally, keep in mind that affinity campaigns should be viewed as long-term investments. Short-term or transitionary campaigns are not likely to realize any real benefits and may even result in a confusing message for the consumer. Through strategic use of such programs, and careful preparation of the legal documents setting forth the relationship, affinity branding can be a valuable tool to enhance a company's reputation and revenues—building both equity in the brand and value to consumers.
This is the fifth of a six-part series exploring how companies can grow the value in their brands by leveraging and protecting their intellectual property. Read parts one, two, three and four.
Today's article discusses affinity branding arrangements. Like co-branding, covered in the last article, affinity branding involves an agreement between two businesses to share in the branding of a product or service. Unlike co-branding, affinity branding typically involves an organization that adds value to its existing members or donors by offering products and services at special member rates.
Affinity groups typically include membership organizations or associations, and nonprofits and charities. “Affinities” can also take the form of any characteristic, ethnicity, hobby, background, profession, lifestyle or life-stage that unites a group of individuals, and affinity groups can thus also take the form of companies that cater to specific demographics. Affinity marketing is a way to induce customers to connect with a brand on an emotional level.
Affinity marketing is thought to have begun in the late 1970s when the American Automobile Association (AAA) partnered with MasterCard to offer AAA members a branded credit card with lower rates and special privileges. Affinity credit card programs boomed in the 1990s when credit card companies partnered with charities and sports teams to provide branded credit cards. Organizations offering such cards benefited from increased brand loyalty and awareness, not to mention increased revenues. Credit card companies benefited from access to the existing distribution channels of the organization.
Members of organizations are always looking for more incentives to maintain a membership, which makes them one of the most successful affinity groups targeted by affinity campaigns. Today, many affinity programs are organized around the use of data and customer contact lists. Typical affinity partners include airlines, hotels, banks, supermarkets and gas stations, but programs can involve virtually any product or service, as they are highly customizable.
Although the benefits to affinity programs are many, as with any arrangement that could impact the value and reputation of your brand, you need to enter into them with caution. We recommend that, ahead of exploring any affinity opportunities, companies develop their own branding guidelines that set forth objective criteria to be evaluated in connection with any affinity branding opportunity.
Because affinity programs, arguably more than any other licensing or co-branding arrangement, go to the emotional heart of brand value, we recommend organizations carefully consider
- Whether the affinity relationship complements and enhances the current image of the organization
- Whether the opportunity is good enough to motivate your members to change their behavior
- Whether the arrangement is financially beneficial
Finally, keep in mind that affinity campaigns should be viewed as long-term investments. Short-term or transitionary campaigns are not likely to realize any real benefits and may even result in a confusing message for the consumer. Through strategic use of such programs, and careful preparation of the legal documents setting forth the relationship, affinity branding can be a valuable tool to enhance a company's reputation and revenues—building both equity in the brand and value to consumers.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250