Co-marketing kit: brand guidelines for partners
What documents are needed before launching a co-marketing kit
Exchanging logos between companies is not a gesture of goodwill, but rather the licensing of intellectual property. If the materials are joint, a cross-license should be issued: each party grants the other the right to use their respective mark under agreed conditions. Without such a document, a partner technically infringes on the brand rights, even if acting from the best intentions.
The second block contains data. If within the framework of a co-marketing campaign the parties collect leads through a shared form or exchange contact databases, under GDPR logic (which is increasingly being applied in Russian practice as a de facto standard) the partners are recognized as joint data controllers. This requires a separate agreement on the distribution of responsibility: who stores the data, who responds to requests from data subjects, and who notifies of a data breach.
| Document | What it regulates | When is it required |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-licence agreement on the trademark | The right to use each other's logos and identity elements | Always in co-branding |
| Co-marketing agreement | Roles, budgets, deadlines, material approval process | Always |
| Agreement on Joint Data Processing | Responsibility for personal data of leads | When collecting contacts via shared channels |
| NDA | Protection of unpublished materials and strategies | At the stage of coordination before launch |
Lead brand: who goes first in co-brand lockup
The term lead brand refers to a partner whose logo and color scheme dominate a specific asset — they come first in lockup and define the tone of voice of the layout. This is not a status of 'main' partner for the entire duration of the collaboration, but a decision made separately for each asset.
Red Hat and Klarna explicitly establish this principle in their public co-branding guidelines: the leading brand is assigned situationally — depending on who owns the distribution channel, who is the campaign initiator, or on which platform the content is published. For example, a webinar hosted by partner A on their own platform will feature lockup with brand A first, even if partner B contributes equally to the campaign in terms of volume. However, in a joint report distributed through both channels simultaneously, the order may be determined by alphabet or by a separately specified rotation rule. The mistake of most companies is an attempt to secure one 'main' partner for the entire term of the agreement. This provokes conflicts with each new asset, because the situation changes, but the rule remains the same.
How to organize the approval process without delays
Verbal agreements via email or messenger are a guaranteed path to post-factum disputes: 'we agreed something else altogether'. A working model is built on three levels of verification, each of which is documented separately.
- Brand review — checking compliance with visual standards: logos, margins, colors, typography.
- Legal/compliance review — verification of license compliance, absence of prohibited statements, and adherence to regulatory requirements.
- Strategic alignment review — an assessment of whether the material is consistent with the positioning and current campaigns of each party.
Each statement is recorded in writing — via email chain, a comment in the project management system, or a separate field in the template. This is not bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: when disputes arise after six months, such documentation will show who approved what.
Metrics for monitoring compliance with the guideline
- The share of materials that have passed the pre-approved template without manual review is a maturity indicator of the system.
- Average time from submission to publication of the asset.
- Number of guideline violations detected on the partner during the period.
- The percentage of repeat violations after a warning is a signal that it is necessary to review the agreement.
- Audit coverage: the share of published materials that were actually verified for compliance (not just those that passed the official workflow).
Template-based approach — when partners are provided with ready-made pre-approved components: logos in the required formats, exact color values, fixed spacing rules — significantly reduces the load on review. The partner assembles the material from ready-made blocks and does not need to coordinate each unit of content.
Multilateral partnerships: when there are more than two partners
The logic of the 'host-guest' model breaks down as soon as three or more brands participate in a campaign. Here, what is needed is not a two-way cross-licence, but a single master agreement with appendices for each partner, and a separate lead brand matrix for different types of materials — otherwise, there will be disputes over which logo is larger on each asset. For a network of dozens of partners (franchises, distribution programs, resellers), governance is structured through central digital asset management with role-based access: a partner can see only their pre-approved templates, and changes in the master guideline are automatically pushed to all local versions.
Typical mistakes
The most common issue is launching joint materials before signing the cross-licence, 'on trust,' with the formulation 'we'll sign the agreement later.' The second one is the lack of a fixed rule for determining the lead brand, which turns every asset into negotiations. The third one is ignoring data: companies specify rules for logo usage but forget about shared responsibility for personal data of leads. The fourth one is manually checking each material instead of using a template-based system, which slows down content release speed and prompts partners to bypass the approval process.
What documents are needed before launching a co-marketing kit
Exchanging logos between companies is not a gesture of goodwill, but rather the licensing of intellectual property. If the materials are joint, a cross-license should be issued: each party grants the other the right to use their respective mark under agreed conditions. Without such a document, a partner technically infringes on the brand rights, even if acting from the best intentions.
The second block contains data. If within the framework of a co-marketing campaign the parties collect leads through a shared form or exchange contact databases, under GDPR logic (which is increasingly being applied in Russian practice as a de facto standard) the partners are recognized as joint data controllers. This requires a separate agreement on the distribution of responsibility: who stores the data, who responds to requests from data subjects, and who notifies of a data breach.
| Document | What it regulates | When is it required |
|---|---|---|
| Cross-licence agreement on the trademark | The right to use each other's logos and identity elements | Always in co-branding |
| Co-marketing agreement | Roles, budgets, deadlines, material approval process | Always |
| Agreement on Joint Data Processing | Responsibility for personal data of leads | When collecting contacts via shared channels |
| NDA | Protection of unpublished materials and strategies | At the stage of coordination before launch |
Lead brand: who goes first in co-brand lockup
The term lead brand refers to a partner whose logo and color scheme dominate a specific asset — they come first in lockup and define the tone of voice of the layout. This is not a status of 'main' partner for the entire duration of the collaboration, but a decision made separately for each asset.
Red Hat and Klarna explicitly establish this principle in their public co-branding guidelines: the leading brand is assigned situationally — depending on who owns the distribution channel, who is the campaign initiator, or on which platform the content is published. For example, a webinar hosted by partner A on their own platform will feature lockup with brand A first, even if partner B contributes equally to the campaign in terms of volume. However, in a joint report distributed through both channels simultaneously, the order may be determined by alphabet or by a separately specified rotation rule. The mistake of most companies is an attempt to secure one 'main' partner for the entire term of the agreement. This provokes conflicts with each new asset, because the situation changes, but the rule remains the same.
How to organize the approval process without delays
Verbal agreements via email or messenger are a guaranteed path to post-factum disputes: 'we agreed something else altogether'. A working model is built on three levels of verification, each of which is documented separately.
- Brand review — checking compliance with visual standards: logos, margins, colors, typography.
- Legal/compliance review — verification of license compliance, absence of prohibited statements, and adherence to regulatory requirements.
- Strategic alignment review — an assessment of whether the material is consistent with the positioning and current campaigns of each party.
Each statement is recorded in writing — via email chain, a comment in the project management system, or a separate field in the template. This is not bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy: when disputes arise after six months, such documentation will show who approved what.
Metrics for monitoring compliance with the guideline
- The share of materials that have passed the pre-approved template without manual review is a maturity indicator of the system.
- Average time from submission to publication of the asset.
- Number of guideline violations detected on the partner during the period.
- The percentage of repeat violations after a warning is a signal that it is necessary to review the agreement.
- Audit coverage: the share of published materials that were actually verified for compliance (not just those that passed the official workflow).
Template-based approach — when partners are provided with ready-made pre-approved components: logos in the required formats, exact color values, fixed spacing rules — significantly reduces the load on review. The partner assembles the material from ready-made blocks and does not need to coordinate each unit of content.
Multilateral partnerships: when there are more than two partners
The logic of the 'host-guest' model breaks down as soon as three or more brands participate in a campaign. Here, what is needed is not a two-way cross-licence, but a single master agreement with appendices for each partner, and a separate lead brand matrix for different types of materials — otherwise, there will be disputes over which logo is larger on each asset. For a network of dozens of partners (franchises, distribution programs, resellers), governance is structured through central digital asset management with role-based access: a partner can see only their pre-approved templates, and changes in the master guideline are automatically pushed to all local versions.
Typical mistakes
The most common issue is launching joint materials before signing the cross-licence, 'on trust,' with the formulation 'we'll sign the agreement later.' The second one is the lack of a fixed rule for determining the lead brand, which turns every asset into negotiations. The third one is ignoring data: companies specify rules for logo usage but forget about shared responsibility for personal data of leads. The fourth one is manually checking each material instead of using a template-based system, which slows down content release speed and prompts partners to bypass the approval process.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
