What Makes a Great Collab, Anyway?
Are we *actually* driving the culture forward, or is everything just a cash grab?
Is it for the culture or for the cash grab
This is the enduring question, isn’t it?
It certainly feels like we’re overdosed on collabs. Or they’ve lost their meaning.
Or both.
In any case, there’s something intuitive about the types of collabs we’re seeing these days that doesn’t feel right.
To help us unpack it, we spoke to Bryson Malone, a friend of the THOUGHTS newsletter and former Art Director at Huckberry. Over the years, Bryson has also worked creatively with companies like VISA, Patagonia, YETI, and La Sportiva and has kindly offered his perspective on:
What the purpose of a collaboration is
A framework for thinking about partnership
How that helps us avoid common pitfalls in collabs
And examples of what good vs. bad collabs look like today
“Entity x Entity” vs. “Entity by Entity”
Collabs shouldn’t always be 50/50. Here’s what I mean…
We should pay more attention to the historical wording of "Entity by Entity" in a collab because it tells us something about what the function of a collab is.
To me, the perfect collab is “Business Entity by Creative Entity” (person, studio, or even another brand).
Example?
New Balance by Salehe Bembury
In this scenario, New Balance supplies the product foundation (R&D, supply chain, decades of time, brand equity, etc), where Salehe brings a fresh creative perspective to that brand foundation.
This format enables the Creative Entity’s cultural clout, ideas, perspectives, and experiences to permeate throughout the Brand, which helps further cement its brand equity.
It, in turn, also allows the brand’s audience/platform, structure, operations, distribution, and payment to flow to the Creative Entity.
These flows are not completely exclusive, because creatives have large audiences, too. That said, in this scenario, the Creative Entity should spearhead design efforts, and the Business Entity should help with support and structure.
Why is this a good blueprint?
It prevents a few pitfalls—
1. Design-by-committee mentality: this is when all parties push their voice and vision, resulting in a watered-down, visionless product without true perspective. Instead, give someone the keys to the car, and you can unlock true creativity and exploration, which is the intended role of bringing on a Creative Entity.
2. Exploitation of the creative: Brands will often have more to gain than creatives, yet brands need creatives with subcultural / domain expertise to maintain street credibility. As such, these creatives should be compensated for their clout and perspective.
3. Corporate Cash Grabs: this is when two big companies offer an “exclusive” or low-hanging fruit product drop. It’s worth noting that these partnerships aren't inherently bad, but they definitely don't push the overall design, culture, or creativity forward.
Bryson’s quick-hit examples of good vs. bad collabs
Good: Dior x ERL — It felt like Dior gave ERL freedom to world-build
Bad: Coors x Huckberry — Just logos placed on basics, no “meat on the bone”
Good: Adidas x Racquet — The graphics and design language are clearly from Racquet's unique, insider view of tennis and not something Adidas would do on their own.
Bad: How Long Gone x Palmes — This is more like a product capsule using HLG as a marketing campaign (which is cool!), but not a *collab* as it's claiming to be.
Good: Levis x Reese Cooper, Levis x Denim Tears — These collabs infuse new visual worlds into Levi's classics. Levi's supplied the canvas and enabled the creative parties to design with freedom.
Anyway, I think about collaborations a lot, and there are plenty of valid frameworks for partnership that I've not listed out. I can’t help but feel like we've strayed far from the path when activating true collabs these days.
We could all use a reset.
What do you think?