1. Listen to the podcast and read the text 

Other Manipulations with Brands. From Co-branding to Cultural Hijacking

Hello! We have already discussed brand extension—the strategy of launching new products under an existing name. But the modern brand manager's toolbox is much richer. Today we will look at other ways companies manipulate their brands: sometimes by joining forces, sometimes by changing their appearance, and sometimes even by hijacking someone else's cultural moment.

Let's look at four key strategies: co-branding, rebranding, brandjacking, and cultural reframing.

Part 1. Co-branding: When two is better than one

The first manipulation is co-branding. This is a strategic alliance where two brands join forces to create a joint product or campaign. The idea is to leverage the equity of both names to create a synergy effect, where one plus one equals three.

However, as a master's thesis from Lund University notes, there are different approaches to this strategy: “inside the box” and “outside the box”. “Inside the box” is a safe collaboration of brands with similar identities and audiences. “Outside the box” is a disruptive collaboration of brands from different worlds that can create a sensation.

A brilliant example of an unconventional approach is the MILO and Nike campaign in Chile. The MILO brand, known for energizing children in sports, placed its billboards next to existing Nike billboards featuring star athletes. On the MILO billboard, the same athletes were depicted as children. The creators explain: “We managed to create a dialogue between the billboards, between yesterday and today”. This was an organic collaboration between two major brands that do not have a commercial agreement, but are connected by a common mission: to celebrate the values of sport. This is co-branding at the level of idea and meaning, not just a logo on a package.

Part 2. Rebranding: The art of changing skin

The next manipulation is rebranding. This is a change in the name, logo, or visual identity of a brand. Rebranding can be cosmetic, or it can be deep, affecting the very essence of the company.

Recently, the plant-based meat company Beyond Meat announced a rebrand. The company officially dropped the word “meat” from its name, rebranding as Beyond The Plant Protein Co., or simply Beyond. CEO Ethan Brown stated that this rebrand is “an opportunity to reshape the company around very real food that is directly from plants”. Why? Because the company faced a misinformation campaign from incumbent industries characterizing their products as “highly-processed and full of chemicals”. By changing the name, Beyond is trying to change the context of the conversation—to move from the category of “artificial meat substitutes” to the category of “healthy plant-based foods.”

Another example is the insurance company Plateau Group, which rebranded as Lumos Insurance. The company said the rebrand positions them to expand into adjacent markets. This shows that rebranding often signals a change in strategy and ambitions.

Part 3. Brandjacking: Hijacking the moment

The most daring and risky manipulation is brandjacking. This is the appropriation of a brand's image or messaging, or riding on the wave of someone else's popularity or event. As an article from the World Communications Forum Association explains, brandjacking allows companies “to insert themselves into cultural conversations and capture public attention in unexpected ways”.

A recent example from May 2025: Duolingo announced an “AI-first” breakthrough. Its competitor, Lingoda, responded with a sarcastic comment in the comments section of Duolingo's post, which garnered over 17,000 likes and gained viral visibility by capitalizing on a rival's media attention. This is brandjacking at the competitor level.

However, the risks are equally high. When Ryanair posted an ironic tweet about a scandal at a Coldplay concert, the post was perceived as mean and insensitive. The conclusion is simple: as the source notes, “Used wisely, it can elevate a brand's cultural relevance. Used recklessly, it can erode trust for years”.

Part 4. Cultural reframing: From product to philosophy

Finally, the most subtle manipulation is cultural reframing. This is when a brand stops talking about the product's features and starts talking about its place in culture and the consumer's life.

A perfect example is Vitamix. For 100 years, Vitamix was just a blender manufacturer. But the brand fell into a pattern of discount-driven marketing, which risked cheapening its reputation. The agency Colle McVoy proposed a new strategy: to shift focus from short-term price cuts to long-term brand strength. They identified a new target audience—the “Essentialist”—people who live by a “fewer, better” ethos.

Vitamix began placing ads not just anywhere, but on Reddit's r/BuyItForLife, The New York Times, and with custom host reads on Freakonomics. They turned the blender from a “kitchen tool” into a “lifestyle signal,” a symbol of discernment. As the VP of marketing stated, “What we needed was a reframe: from product to philosophy”.

Conclusion

So, what is the main lesson?

In our previous lecture, we discussed brand extension—moving to new products. Today we have seen that brand management is not limited to launching new items. It is a constant game of meaning, context, and perception.

Co-branding allows you to find a new sound through partnership.

Rebranding helps to shed old skin and start a new chapter.

Brandjacking is a way to catch the wave of the moment, albeit at great risk.

Cultural reframing turns a simple object into a part of the consumer's identity.

The key to success in any of these manipulations is authenticity and an understanding of your brand's core idea. Without that core, any manipulation risks turning into a meaningless, and sometimes destructive, game.

2. Vocabulary Exercise

Task: Find the English equivalents of the following Russian words and expressions from the text and type them into the gaps.

  1. стратегический альянс —
  2. использовать ценность бренда — of the brand
  3. синергетический эффект —
  4. подрывной / нестандартный —
  5. нетрадиционный подход —
  6. визуальная идентичность —
  7. самая суть компании — the of the company
  8. кампания по дезинформации —
  9. смежные рынки —
  10. присвоение образа бренда — of a brand's image
  11. культурные разговоры / обсуждения —
  12. вирусная заметность / вирусная видимость —
  13. культурная актуальность бренда — the brand's
  14. дешевить репутацию —
  15. проницательность / тонкий вкус / разборчивость —

 

3. Comprehension Questions

Task: Answer the following questions based on the lecture text about brand manipulation strategies.

  1. What is meant by the term brand extension, which was discussed in the previous lecture?
  2. According to the lecture, why is the modern brand manager's toolbox considered richer than simply using brand extension?
  3. What four brand manipulation strategies are introduced in the lecture?
  4. What is co-branding and what is its main strategic goal?
  5. What does the phrase “one plus one equals three” imply in the context of co-branding?
  6. What is the difference between the “inside the box” and “outside the box” approaches to co-branding?
  7. Why was the MILO and Nike billboard campaign considered an unconventional example of co-branding?
  8. What elements of a brand may change during rebranding?
  9. Why did Beyond Meat decide to rebrand itself as Beyond The Plant Protein Co.?
  10. How can rebranding signal a change in a company’s strategy or ambitions?
  11. What is brandjacking, according to the lecture?
  12. How did Lingoda’s reaction to Duolingo’s announcement demonstrate brandjacking?
  13. Why can brandjacking be considered both powerful and risky?
  14. What is meant by cultural reframing in brand management?
  15. How did Vitamix transform the perception of its product through cultural reframing?

4. Translation Exercise

Task: Translate the following sentences into English.

  1. Чтобы укрепить свои позиции на рынке, два известных бренда решили создать стратегический альянс и запустить совместную рекламную кампанию.
  2. При выводе нового продукта на рынок компания попыталась использовать ценность уже раскрученного бренда, а не строить узнаваемость с нуля.
  3. Руководство надеялось, что сотрудничество с популярной спортивной маркой даст синергетический эффект и привлечёт новую аудиторию.
  4. Их рекламный ход оказался настолько подрывным и неожиданным, что вызвал бурную реакцию как в прессе, так и в социальных сетях.
  5. Агентство предложило нестандартный подход к продвижению бренда, полностью отказавшись от привычных шаблонов коммуникации.
  6. В ходе ребрендинга компания изменила не только название, но и всю визуальную идентичность, включая логотип, цветовую палитру и упаковку.
  7. Новый генеральный директор заявил, что изменения должны затронуть не только внешний облик фирмы, но и самую суть компании.
  8. Производители альтернативных продуктов столкнулись с кампанией по дезинформации, в рамках которой их товары представлялись вредными и неестественными.
  9. После смены названия и позиционирования бренд рассчитывает выйти на смежные рынки и привлечь новые группы потребителей.
  10. Некоторые компании прибегают к присвоению образа бренда конкурента или к использованию чужого инфоповода, чтобы быстро оказаться в центре внимания.
  11. Современные бренды стараются встроиться в культурные обсуждения, чтобы показать свою актуальность и близость к интересам аудитории.
  12. Благодаря остроумному комментарию под публикацией конкурента компания получила вирусную видимость и резко увеличила охваты.
  13. Маркетологи понимали, что без культурной актуальности бренд рискует потерять связь с молодыми потребителями.
  14. Постоянные скидки и чрезмерные распродажи со временем начали удешевлять репутацию бренда в глазах покупателей.
  15. Опытный бренд-менеджер действует с большой проницательностью и умеет отличать временный тренд от действительно важного культурного сдвига.

5. Speaking Task: Micro-dialogues on Brand Strategy

Task: Work in pairs and act out short micro-dialogues based on the lecture about co-branding, rebranding, brandjacking, and cultural reframing.

In each micro-dialogue:

  • Student A is a CEO or Head of Marketing of one of the companies mentioned in the lecture.
  • Student B is the owner, founder, or investor listening to the proposal.

Student A should suggest doing something with the existing brand.

Student B should react in two different ways:

  1. Variant 1: with curiosity and interest, while asking for clarification.
  2. Variant 2: with skepticism and doubt, while asking for clarification.

Use the companies from the lecture: MILO, Nike, Beyond, Lumos Insurance / Plateau Group, Duolingo, Lingoda, Ryanair, Vitamix.

Possible situations

  1. MILO / Nike: suggest a new co-branding campaign built around childhood memories of famous athletes.
  2. Beyond: suggest a deeper rebranding to position the company as a healthy plant-based food brand rather than a meat substitute producer.
  3. Lumos Insurance: suggest expanding the rebranded company into adjacent markets.
  4. Lingoda: suggest reacting to a competitor’s viral announcement in order to gain visibility.
  5. Ryanair: suggest posting an ironic comment on a trending cultural event.
  6. Vitamix: suggest shifting from discount-based marketing to a lifestyle- and philosophy-based brand strategy.

What your dialogue should include

  • a clear suggestion
  • a reaction showing either curiosity or skepticism
  • at least 1–2 questions asking for clarification
  • some mention of benefits, risks, feasibility, audience, image, or long-term effect

Length: 6–10 lines per micro-dialogue.

Make 2 versions of the same situation:

  • Version A: curious owner / investor
  • Version B: skeptical owner / investor

Useful conversational formulas

Click here to show/hide formulas for making suggestions

Click here to show/hide formulas for reacting with curiosity

Click here to show/hide formulas for reacting with skepticism

Click here to show/hide formulas for asking for clarification

Click here to show/hide formulas for outlining benefits and feasibility

Model micro-dialogue

Situation: Vitamix Head of Marketing suggests moving away from discount-driven marketing and repositioning the brand as a lifestyle symbol.

Version A: Curious reaction

Head of Marketing: One possible approach would be to shift our focus away from discounts and reposition Vitamix as a lifestyle brand associated with discernment and long-term value.

Owner: That’s an interesting idea. Could you elaborate on what you mean by “lifestyle brand” in this context?

Head of Marketing: I mean that instead of presenting the blender as just a kitchen tool, we would frame it as a symbol of a “fewer, better” philosophy.

Owner: That sounds promising. How exactly would that work in practice?

Head of Marketing: We could place our ads in premium media spaces and partner with platforms that value durability, quality, and intentional living.

Owner: I can see the potential in that idea. What kind of result are you expecting?

Head of Marketing: The main advantage is that it could strengthen long-term brand equity and reduce our dependence on constant price cuts.

Version B: Skeptical reaction

Head of Marketing: It might be worth trying a strategy that moves us away from discount-based promotion and positions Vitamix as a lifestyle signal rather than just a blender brand.

Owner: I’m not entirely convinced. That seems rather risky. Could you clarify what you mean by “lifestyle signal”?

Head of Marketing: I mean a product that communicates taste, values, and discernment, not just functionality.

Owner: I can see the idea, but I have some reservations. How would that work in practice?

Head of Marketing: We would target consumers who believe in buying fewer but better products and advertise in places that reflect that ethos.

Owner: Would that be financially viable? Do we actually have the resources to do that?

Head of Marketing: Yes, because this builds on the company’s existing strengths and could improve long-term brand value instead of generating only short-term sales spikes.

More prompts for the roles:

Student A may say: suggest, propose, recommend, outline benefits, explain feasibility, justify the strategy.

Student B may say: react with curiosity or skepticism, ask follow-up questions, challenge the logic, ask about risks, audience, cost, and implementation.