In many large organizations, there exists someone with the title “Brand Manager.” But if titles reflected reality, the box on the organization chart would read something like “Co-Brand Co-Manager.”

Although organizations often don’t realize or acknowledge just how dependent they are on co-brands, co-branding is far more common than it has ever been. Co-brands may soon be more common than standalone brands.

Co-branding is just so darn easy in a digital world. Co-brands are easy as cut and paste, or a click from one Web site to another. In addition, co-brands have proved very effective—if managed right, or, more accurately, co-managed right.

Volkswagen of America Inc. (www.volkswagen.com) and Trek Bicycle Corp. (www.trekbikes.com) team up successfully to sell cars and bicycles. American Airlines (www.aa.com), Citibank (www.citibank.com), and Visa U.S.A. (www.visa.com) jointly offer a credit card. Electronics concern Philips Electronics NV (www.philips.com) and jeans maker Levi Strauss & Co. (www.levi.com) just announced a jacket with built-in electronics: a cellphone hidden in the collar and an MP3 player in one of the pockets. Computer maker Compaq Computer Corp. (www.compaq.com) recently made the complex strategic and financial decision to use Microsoft Corp.’s PocketPC brand (www.microsoft.com) on every Compaq personal digital assistant. Saab Automobile AB (www.saab.com) is running ads touting the addition of the OnStar feature, a satellite navigation tool originally available only in Cadillacs. Suits often have two brands on the labels. A new cellphone has three: manufacturer Kyocera International Inc. (www.kyocera.com), hand-held computer maker Palm Inc. (www.palm.com), and cellphone operator Verizon Wireless Inc. (www.verizon.com).

Co-brands also are used in a greater variety of ways than ever before. They are used for products, for advertising, and for promotion. They can last days or years. They can be high-profile and explicit, or low-key and subtle. They can combine two brands or many—as in the case of the OneWorld Alliance, a linkup involving American Airlines, Aer Lingus Group PLC (www.aerlingus.ie), British Airways PLC (www.britishairways.com), Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (www.cathaypacific.com), Finnair Oyj (www.finnair.com), Iberia Lineas Aereus de Espana SA (www.iberia.es), LanChile Airlines (www.lanchile.com), and Qantas Airways Ltd. (www.qantas.com.au).

Think of co-branding as an introduction, sort of a marketing blind date. I would like to introduce you, consumer of my product or service, to a friend of mine, Brand X. Brand X, meet Consumer Y.

Of course, not all blind dates are successful. Because co-brands are so easy, they can be overused by aggressive business-development managers. As a result, there has been a deluge of unwieldy and downright confusing co-brand brand propositions. Consider “Lycos Online Powered by AT&T WorldNet Service.” Were all of those names really needed to promote a new Internet-access service called WorldNet back in 1998? Wouldn’t AT&T, one of the world’s most recognized brands for years, have been enough? Who or what was Lycos, anyway? Most consumers with a less-than-commanding knowledge of the Internet probably didn’t have a clue about Lycos’s history as a search engine. The result: Too many players created too much confusion in crafting a co-branding effort that did little justice to the individual companies or the new service they were jointly promoting.

There also is more risk than just confused communication. In those cases where one brand gets sick, it can infect another, as well—ask auto maker Ford Motor Co. (www.ford.com) and tire maker Bridgestone/Firestone Inc. (www.bridgestone-firestone.com).

For a brand linking up with a more aggressive partner, it is easy to wake up and wonder who is driving the brand bus anyway. In 1994, Swiss company Swatch Group Ltd. (www.swatch.com) got the bright idea to do to cars what it had done so successfully to watches, that is, make them small, cheap, and fashionable. Swatch chose the Mercedes-Benz unit of German-American auto maker DaimlerChrysler (www.daimlerchrysler.com) as a partner. Today, Mercedes is pushing ahead—without Swatch.

The risks aren’t just corporate, either. Several years ago, a failed co-branding venture with Sunbeam Corp. (www.sunbeam.com), the household goods and small appliance maker, cost the executive vice president of the American Medical Association (www.ama-assn.org) his job.

Because of these risks, co-branding needs to be thought through thoroughly and dispassionately.

Co-brands work when they meet these criteria:

The partners have similar values and brand positions and a commonality of purpose. Co-brands don’t work as well when the connection is contrived, as was the case a decade ago when U.K. retail grocer J. Sainsbury PLC struck an elaborate and extended alliance whereby customers got free flights on British Airways. Justifying the alliance, a spokesman explained hopefully, “It’s the world’s favorite airline and Britain’s favorite supermarket.”

Roles and contributions are clear, and both sides bring something unique to the party. Apple is the strongest standalone brand in personal computers. However, the company regularly gets trounced by co-brands, such as the Microsoft/Intel Corp./Dell Computer Corp. juggernaut (www.intel.com, www.dell.com). This triumvirate, possibly the most successful co-brand in the world, works so well because they have clear roles and make unique contributions.

There can be some overlap in the contributions, but not too much. Today, it is OK for the new Kyocera cellphone to be co-branded with Palm. Over time, as Palm becomes versatile and expands into new devices, this co-brand may fall apart because of too much overlap.

The joint message is simple, clear, and intuitively obvious. Disney toys at fast-food chain McDonald’s Corp. (www.disney.com, www.mcdonalds.com). Got it. Bacardi rum and Coca-Cola (www.bacardi.com, www.coke.com). Got it. Apparel retailer Eddie Bauer (www.eddiebauer.com) and Ford. Say what?

Everyone is clear up front—clear about expectations, clear about contribution, clear about process. SAP AG (www.sap.com), the German enterprise-resource-planning software concern, has dozens of alliances with companies that install its software. Many of the alliances are de facto co-brands. They succeed because SAP has a very disciplined process for deciding who can install its software and for defining expectations for those partners.

You manage risks actively. What happens if one brand has a problem? Or changes managers, and the new guy wants to go in a different direction? We counsel clients to create a co-branding prenuptial agreement before entering co-branding relationships. That is when heads are coolest, and the parties best able to think clearly.

If you follow these simple rules, you stand a chance to create the next super co-brand. At the very least, you won’t be remembered in the same dim light as the executives at NBC television (www.nbc.com) and the World Wrestling Federation (www.wwf.com) who really, really believed with all of their hearts that their Extreme Football League would be a marriage made in co-branding heaven.

Sam Hill and Chris Lederer are co-authors of The Infinite Asset: Managing Brands to Build New Value. Hill can be reached at sam_hill@heliosconsulting.com and Lederer can be reached at chris_lederer@heliosconsulting.com.