Toward Decision-Oriented Digital Brand Collaborations: A Review of Spillover Effects, Pricing Mechanisms, and Platform Cooperatio

Authors

  • Amirmohamad Samaeian * Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran. https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6630-7594
  • Parisa Assarzadegan Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1432-7931
  • Hossein Khosroshahi Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, 84156-83111, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1481-6479

https://doi.org/10.48314/jidcm.v2i2.87

Abstract

The rapid development of digital technologies and the evolution of consumer behavior have radically changed the traditional ways of interaction and competition between brands, driving innovation and creating new forms of collaborative partnerships in business management. In digital entrepreneurial environments, inter brand collaborations, ranging from joint promotional campaigns to shared digital ecosystems, have emerged as strategic instruments for value creation and competitive differentiation. Nevertheless, a review of the literature indicates that many such initiatives fail to achieve the desired outcomes in areas such as perceived value, customer loyalty, and economic returns, largely because of the absence of a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that underpin successful digital alliances. This review article seeks to synthesize and integrate existing research by examining three principal dimensions of collaboration oriented initiatives in digital contexts. The first concerns brand spillover effects and the transfer of credibility and brand image between partners. The second addresses brand power as a determining factor in pricing decisions, benefit sharing arrangements, and the broader economic structure of collaboration, including revenue models, risk allocation, and governance mechanisms. The third dimension is that of the complementarity of product or service design so as to increase the effectiveness of the campaign and to increase the operational efficiency. Moreover, recent studies highlight that the analysis of these interactions in digital ecosystems without the use of quantitative approaches (game theory and demand models in two sided markets in particular) leads to a partial understanding of coopetitive dynamics. The review of the literature shows a major gap between the practical needs of business managers and the analytical models currently available. On the one hand, intuition based decision making in digital collaborations tends to lead to inefficient resource allocation and brand dilution. On the other hand, the lack of predictive frameworks prevents the design of sustainable alliances. The article integrates theoretical perspectives and empirical results to provide a comprehensive framework for partner selection, designing profitable collaborations, and developing a future research agenda for the advancement of digital marketing management and the economic productivity of collaborative ventures.

Keywords:

Game theory, Pricing, Sales model, Brand spillover, Co-marketing, Platforms

References

  1. [1] Varadarajan, P. R., & Cunningham, M. H. (1995). Strategic alliances: A synthesis of conceptual foundations. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 23(4), 282–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207039502300408

  2. [2] Abdalla, S., Amankwah-Amoah, J., Khan, Z., & Hirekhan, M. (2025). Strategic agility in the B2B sharing economy ecosystem of emerging economies: Empirical insights from the Middle East. Industrial marketing management, 125, 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2025.01.018

  3. [3] Giglio, C., Corvello, V., Coniglio, I. M., Kraus, S., & Gast, J. (2025). Cooperation between large companies and start-ups: An overview of the current state of research. European management journal, 43(1), 142–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2023.08.002

  4. [4] Grieco, C., & Iasevoli, G. (2017). Co-marketing alliances: Definitions and approaches. Insights from a literature review. Management research review, 40(9), 971–989. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-11-2016-0270

  5. [5] Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E., & Aqueveque, C. (2012). Clusters or un-clustered industries? Where inter-firm marketing cooperation matters. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 27(5), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621211236061

  6. [6] Felzensztein, C., & Deans, K. R. (2013). Marketing practices in wine clusters: Insights from Chile. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 28(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858621311313947

  7. [7] Cespedes, F. V. (1993). Co-ordinating sales and marketing in consumer goods firms. Journal of consumer marketing, 10(2), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769310039111

  8. [8] Ind, N., Iglesias, O., & Schultz, M. (2013). Building brands together: Emergence and outcomes of co-creation. California management review, 55(3), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2013.55.3.5

  9. [9] Krijestorac, H., Garg, R., & Mahajan, V. (2020). Cross-platform spillover effects in consumption of viral content: A quasi-experimental analysis using synthetic controls. Information systems research, 31(2), 449–472. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2019.0897

  10. [10] Aivalioti, S., López, L., Plociennik, M., Olszewski, A., Schmitt, C., Steiner, Y., ... & Patrick, Z. (2018). From innovative niches to a cooperative IoT ecosystem creating business value for federated and interoperable IoT platforms. 2018 global internet of things summit (GIoTS) (pp. 1-6). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/GIOTS.2018.8534522

  11. [11] Engert, M., Evers, J., Hein, A., & Krcmar, H. (2023). Sustaining complementor engagement in digital platform ecosystems: Antecedents, behaviours and engagement trajectories. Information systems journal, 33(5), 1151–1185. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12438

  12. [12] Wulf, J., Limbach, F., & Zarnekow, R. (2010). Analysis of QoS platform cooperation strategies. Proceedings of the 21st european regional ITS conference: Telecommunications at new crossroads—changing value configurations, user roles, and regulation (pp. 1–19). International Telecommunications Society (ITS). https://hdl.handle.net/10419/44348

  13. [13] Du, S. (2023). Symbiosis evolution of e-commerce platform ecosystem with cooperative and competitive effect: An extended population density logistic model-based simulation. Modelling and simulation in engineering, 2023(1), 2472618. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/2472618

  14. [14] Zhu, X., Shi, R., Qi, Z., & Yan, A. (2024). Fly with social platform? Two-sided platform cooperation and pricing strategy considering same-side crowding out. Journal of industrial and management optimization, 20(9), 3004–3030. https://doi.org/10.3934/jimo.2024039

  15. [15] Mao, R., Chen, H., & Shen, H. (2023). Cooperation strategies with third-party platform: E-tailer and manufacturer perspectives. Naval research logistics (NRL), 70(8), 878–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.22136

  16. [16] Jin, S., Li, T., Yang, H., Sun, L., & Huang, Y. (2025). Brand spillover and information disclosure in the presence of a co-opetitive supplier. Electronic commerce research and applications, 74, 101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2025.101545

  17. [17] Chen, M., Zhou, Y., & Zhao, S. (2026). Conservative or free-riding: Optimal sourcing strategy selection. Omega, 74, 103538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2026.103538

  18. [18] Liu, M., Li, G., Wu, H., & Li, X. (2023). Does free brand spillover benefit online retailers? Roles of logistics service selection. Transportation research part e: Logistics and transportation review, 178, 103270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2023.103270

  19. [19] Dong, J., Zhang, Q., Teng, H., Jiang, L., & Lu, W. (2025). Cooperation mode selection strategies in platform ecosystems: Analyzing brand value, cross-selling, and platform empowerment. Journal of modelling in management, 20(3), 923–948. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-03-2024-0065

  20. [20] Ji, Y., Xu, X., & Sun, Y. (2016). Cooperation strategies for e-commerce platforms with seller classification. Kybernetes, 45(9), 1369–1386. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2015-0318

  21. [21] Hao, L., Bin, L., Lei, L., & Rong, Z. (2026). Human or AI-powered? The optimal customer service for an e-commerce platform supply chain with competing brands. Expert systems with applications, 132821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2026.132821

  22. [22] Du, S. (2024). An evolutionary game-theoretic analysis of cooperation strategy between SMEs and cross-border e-commerce platforms considering the cross-network effect. Kybernetes, 53(5), 1857–1887. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-09-2022-1316

  23. [23] Song, H., Wang, R., & Tang, Y. (2024). Competition or cooperation: Strategy analysis for a social commerce platform. European journal of operational research, 318(2), 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2024.05.014

  24. [24] Xiaoli, L. I., & Shuo, C. (2019). An evolutionary analysis of supply chain financial cooperation strategy between banks and e-commerce platforms considering the network effect. Industrial engineering journal, 22(2), 35. (In Chinese). https://iej.gdut.edu.cn/EN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=9451

  25. [25] Rochet, J. C., & Tirole, J. (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the european economic association, 1(4), 990–1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212

  26. [26] Weyl, E. G. (2010). A price theory of multi-sided platforms. American economic review, 100(4), 1642–1672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.4.1642

  27. [27] Wang, H., Good, V., Lim, J. H., & Hsieh, M. H. (2024). Sell on, sell to, or sell through: The sales performance implications of brand-platform selling arrangements. Journal of retailing, 100(4), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2024.09.003

  28. [28] Qiu, Y., Ni, D., & Fang, X. (2026). How do B2B platforms facilitate and maintain on-platform supply chain relationships under cost information asymmetry? Omega, 143, 103619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2026.103619

  29. [29] Li, L., Feng, T., Wang, Y., Peng, S., & Hou, P. (2026). Contract manufacturer versus platform: Quality innovation strategy with brand spillover effect. International transactions in operational research. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.70185

  30. [30] Chu, M., Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2025). Co-opetition strategies of retail platform operations with strategic consumers. European journal of operational research, 329(3), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.07.053

  31. [31] Liu, P., Liu, B., & Liu, N. (2025). The impact of brand spillover marketing strategy on selling mode in an e-commerce platform supply chain. European journal of operational research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.09.044

  32. [32] Matsui, K. (2025). Optimal pricing timing for an e-commerce platform selling a private label on its own marketplace. European journal of operational research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2025.10.001

  33. [33] Hagiu, A. (2009). Two-sided platforms: Product variety and pricing structures. Journal of economics & management strategy, 18(4), 1011–1043. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2009.00236.x

  34. [34] Lin, J., Zhou, Z., Chen, Y., Wang, X., Wei, W., & Zhang, Q. (2026). Pricing strategies of water rights trading platforms under weak marketization trends: Evidence from China. Frontiers in environmental science, 14, 1788771. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2026.1788771

  35. [35] Li, M., Yao, Z., & Kong, M. (2026). Competitive strategies of content platforms in self-operated e-commerce: An analysis based on consumer preference characteristics. Technology in society, 103392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103392

  36. [36] Rath, S. B., Basu, P., Govindan, K., & Mandal, P. (2024). Platform vs. 3PL financing: Strategic choice of lending model for an e-tailer under operational risk. Transportation research part e: Logistics and transportation review, 184, 103459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103459

  37. [37] Ma, Y., Zhang, M., & Zhao, J. (2023). Pricing decision of dual-channel supply chain with members risk-aversion under the participation of e-commerce platform. Procedia computer science, 221, 138–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2023.07.020

  38. [38] Zhu, L., & Lin, J. (2019). A pricing strategy of e-commerce advertising cooperation in the stackelberg game model with different market power structure. Algorithms, 12(1), 24. https://doi.org/10.3390/a12010024

  39. [39] Hu, R., Feng, H., Feng, N., & Li, M. (2026). An economic analysis of eligibility thresholds for ad-revenue-sharing programs on content platforms. Omega, 103605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2026.103605

  40. [40] Bucklin, L. P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing successful co-marketing alliances. Journal of marketing, 57(2), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700203

  41. [41] Tanriverdi, H., & Venkatraman, N. (2005). Knowledge relatedness and the performance of multibusiness firms. Strategic management journal, 26(2), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.435

  42. [42] Ngo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2012). In search of innovation and customer-related performance superiority: The role of market orientation, marketing capability, and innovation capability interactions. Journal of product innovation management, 29(5), 861–877. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00939.x

  43. [43] Bengtsson, A., & Servais, P. (2005). Co-branding on industrial markets. Industrial marketing management, 34(7), 706–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.06.004

  44. [44] Kornum, N., Gyrd-Jones, R., Al Zagir, N., & Brandis, K. A. (2017). Interplay between intended brand identity and identities in a Nike related brand community: Co-existing synergies and tensions in a nested system. Journal of business research, 70, 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.06.019

  45. [45] Li, J., & Teirlinck, P. (2025). Order out of chaos: Analyzing strategic research and development cooperation decision of young technology-based firms under multiple factors. Journal of engineering and technology management, 77, 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2025.101903

  46. [46] Gummesson, E., & Mele, C. (2010). Marketing as value co-creation through network interaction and resource integration. Journal of business market management, 4(4), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12087-010-0044-2

  47. [47] Prestes Joly, M., Teixeira, J. G., Patrício, L., & Sangiorgi, D. (2019). Leveraging service design as a multidisciplinary approach to service innovation. Journal of service management, 30(6), 681-715. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-07-2017-0178

  48. [48] Gummesson, E. (2008). Quality, service-dominant logic and many-to-many marketing. The tqm journal, 20(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730810857372

  49. [49] Yang, R., Feng, L., Zhang, J., & Song, Z. (2025). Conflicts and cooperation: New product development or co-development in a supply chain. Transportation research part e: Logistics and transportation review, 197, 104069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2025.104069

  50. [50] Liu, Y., Wang, X., & Ren, W. (2020). A bundling sales strategy for a two-stage supply chain based on the complementarity elasticity of imperfect complementary products. Journal of business & industrial marketing, 35(6), 983–1000. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0267

  51. [51] Nie, T., Song, B., & Zhang, J. (2024). Sales pricing models based on returns: Bundling vs. add-on. Omega, 125, 103038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2024.103038

  52. [52] Hsia, T.L., Wu, J.H., Xu, X., Li, Q., Peng, L., & Robinson, S. (2020). Omnichannel retailing: The role of situational involvement in facilitating consumer experiences. Information & management, 57(8), 103390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2020.103390

  53. [53] Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. (2010). Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic management journal, 31(6), 602–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.829

  54. [54] Sarasvuo, S., Rindell, A., & Kovalchuk, M. (2022). Toward a conceptual understanding of co-creation in branding. Journal of business research, 139, 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.051

  55. [55] Li, G., & Aisaiti, G. (2025). The formation mechanism of social media platform brand value under the prosumption logic from the perspective of value co-creation. Kybernetes, 54(11), 6742–6763. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2024-0273

  56. [56] Jaakkola, E., & Alexander, M. (2014). The role of customer engagement behavior in value co-creation: A service system perspective. Journal of service research, 17(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670514529187

  57. [57] Weiger, W. H., Giertz, J. N., Hammerschmidt, M., & Hollebeek, L. D. (2025). Blurred lines? Disentangling the roles of consumers’ influencer-and brand engagement in shaping brand performance. Journal of business research, 194, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115280

  58. [58] Zhang, Q., Chen, J., & Lin, J. (2022). Market targeting with social influences and risk aversion in a co-branding alliance. European journal of operational research, 297(1), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.022

  59. [59] Rothaermel, F. T. (2001). Incumbent’s advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic management journal, 22(6–7), 687–699. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.180

  60. [60] Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic management journal, 39(12), 3140–3162. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2785

Published

2026-06-10

How to Cite

Samaeian, A. ., Assarzadegan, P. ., & Khosroshahi, H. . (2026). Toward Decision-Oriented Digital Brand Collaborations: A Review of Spillover Effects, Pricing Mechanisms, and Platform Cooperatio. Journal of Intelligent Decision and Computational Modelling, 2(2), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.48314/jidcm.v2i2.87

Similar Articles

1-10 of 14

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.