Suppliers of luxury fashion fabrics in France have historically been working in fierce competitive ways. Usually family-owned businesses, they are working for the same clients, be it in fast fashion, premium fashion or luxury (including Haute-Couture). Calais lace-makers are no exception. However, what could have been described as same emulation in the past turns out to be a weakness in the XXIst century, with booming foreign competition from developing countries. Up to now, they’ve been unable to join their forces to collaborate on projects such as big orders from fashion brands. Created in 1952, the Dentelle de Calais® label can be used by the lace manufacturers using Leavers machines, and active members to the French Federation of Lace and Embroidment (which is the IP owner of the label). This encompasses the places of Calais (traditionally manufacturing lace for undergarments) and of Caudry (more focused on clothes). Caudresian lace has become famous as a proud supplier for the Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding dress or for the awarded costumes in The Great Gatsby. However, it appears that the label is currently dying, being unequally used by the various lace-makers and retailers / brand owners of clothes or undergarments. In January 2014, a repositioning of the label has been initiated. We’ve been asked to do it and decided to use action research to complete this task. The ultimate objective was to give a new identity to the label and DNA to the brand, which could be used by any lace-maker using Leavers machines in a way enhancing his own brand equity. In short, we aim at crafting an ingredient branding strategy. The present action research, on top of solving the client’s issues, aimed at enhancing knowledge on several key topics. First, we wanted to understand better information processes in a cluster that is bi-located, and with internal “fights”. Then, another objective was to grasp the various points that are at stake when clustering happens in-between non-aligned partners. More specifically, we wanted to uncover how decisions happened, and stimulate new ways for decision-making optimization. A last objective was to reflect upon ingredient collective-branding strategic developments, as most literature on branding concerns individual brands and not collective ones. As these become a major trend in these days, we believe academic research has a great role to play. Our research is a first step in this direction. To do this, various data collection and analysis methods have been used: • Interviews with all types stakeholders (fashion designers, purchasers, marketers, journalists, students in fashion or business schools, etc.), to understand their present vision of lace fabric in general and whether they would or would not use it (including in their sales argument). Then similar discussion on Calais lace is conducted. Open-coding and axial coding are then done to identify the values associated with lace and Calais lace, for each stakeholder-category. • Semiotic analysis of the label, to understand the Ethics and Aesthetics of this collective brand. This includes content and discourse analyses, visual (iconic and plastic) analysis of the communication tools including the logo, etc. The current label positioning is presented thanks to the greimasian semiotic square . • Non-participant observation and non-directed interviews with all lace-makers to get each one’s perspective on the label. Open coding and axial coding (Strauss & Corbin) are used to identify the relevant categories and sub-categories underlying the dicsourses. • Lexical analysis of all verbatims will help identify the proper jargon to reconcile stakeholders and manufacturers. • Market analysis on the various relevant markets: Middle East, Europe and Asia. • Structural semiotics are used to wrap-up findings and craft a new brand identity (Greimas’ semiotic square and narrative scheme). More than a simple action, this ingredient-branding collective action will help foster a collective conscience around the preservation of an endangered manufacturing sector of activity, paving the way for a future industrial cluster. Besides the managerial outcomes, this project aimed at (1) Understanding better information processes in a cluster that is bi-located, and with internal “fights”; (2) Grasping the various points that are at stake when clustering happens in-between non-aligned partners, esp. in terms of decision-making processes; and (3) Reflecting upon ingredient collective-branding strategic developments. Our paper presents all these points, providing practical and theoretical insights for the luxury community in general.

In the advent a new market that didn’t exist a few years ago, the total sales in wearable devices could top $32.2 billion by 2019, up from $18.9 billion last year (Kharif 2015). The most anticipated new device is the Apple Smart Watch which has a function to detect pulse rate and send messages using voice commands (There is a gold version for $10,000). Further, Tag Heuer recently announces a partnership with Intel and Google to produce the world's first luxury Android Wear Smartwatch. Given that the high potential to do some research in this area (i.e., luxury brand alliances), little research examines luxury brand strategy and especially luxury ingredient branding (IB) strategy. This study explores the evaluations of and attitudes to the host luxury brand after IB alliances. An ingredient branding (IB), the incorporation of parent brand with another brand as ingredient (Desai and Keller 2002), allows two brands to have better market competitiveness (Simonin and Ruth 1998). The IB parent brand is the “host,” the main product, and the “ingredient,” a component that is integrated into the host. For example, Dell computer (the host) has a co-branding relationship with Intel as the ingredient (Intel, 2006). Both brands enjoy the benefits of the relationship that include mutual cooperation and knowledge sharing. The IB strategy has valuable benefits for both brands. For example, the host (i.e., Dell) may enjoy an enhanced market reputation, while the ingredient brand (i.e., Intel) may benefit by reducing the probability of entry by competitors. Further, Dell receives a preferential price from Intel, while Intel enjoys a stable and long-term customer. Current research on ingredient branding examines the determinants of IB success (Desai and Keller 2002) as well as the feedback effect on a parent brand subsequent to an IB alliances (Rodrigue and Biswas 2004). IB feedback effect involves changes in consumer attitudes toward the original parent brand resulting from the IB alliances. Extant research in this topic shows positive effects of IB strategy for the host (e.g., Balachander and Ghose 2003). However, some other research also shows that negative effects for the host caused by an IB alliances (e.g., Votolato and Unnava 2006). This equivocal findings suggest that there are some other conditions generating positive and negative effects of IB strategy for the host. Thus, the purpose of our study is to examine the conditions under which IB strategy influences negatively or positively to the host. We will focus uncovering this research gap on finding the conditions that influence positively or negatively to the host. Using ingredient brand strategy in luxury brand, we will examine how the fit of the host (Tag Heuer) and the ingredients (Google and Intel) influences the host’s brand attitude. We assume that the product fit (i.e., the host current product category: Tag Heuer watch vs the final product after IB alliances: Tag Heuer Android Wear Smartwatch) may positively influence the host’s brand attitude while the brand fit (i.e., luxury brand: Tag Heuer vs non-luxury brand: Google and Intel) may negatively influence the host’s brand attitude. Further, we will examine the role of Brand Engagement in Self-Concept (BESC) as a moderator in this relationship (Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg 2009).