THE ECONOMICS OF IP ASSET DEPLETION IN CROSS IP COLLABORATION
Keywords:
Cross-IP collaboration, IP asset depletion, Brand dilution, Exogenous parameters, Secondary market, Attention economyAbstract
Cross-IP collaboration has become a regular commercial strategy in character merchandise, entertainment, games, fashion and collectible markets. Firms combine independently controlled intellectual properties to create new products, events and consumption settings. This paper studies a specific economic problem within this practice: a firm may rationally expand cross-IP collaboration even when repeated collaboration places pressure on the long-term value of the focal IP. Drawing on brand equity, brand extension, co-branding fit and brand dilution research, the paper develops an exogenous parameter model in which a firm chooses collaboration intensity by comparing short-term collaboration benefit, development cost and long-term IP asset depletion loss. The model derives the equilibrium condition for development intensity and shows how weak internalization of long-term asset loss can move a firm above a sustainable collaboration boundary. The paper then translates the model into an operational scoring framework using public indicators, including secondary-market premium, release-window attention, product-count intensity, price volatility, background attention decline and focal-IP revenue concentration. The weights in this framework are introduced as exogenous diagnostic parameters, with their economic meaning and normalization rules stated explicitly. Pop Mart cross-IP products are used as an exploratory case setting. The case evidence suggests that cross-IP collaboration can generate visible market value and asset pressure at the same time. The paper contributes a definition of IP asset depletion, a tractable theoretical model and a replicable public-data pathway for future empirical research.References
[1] Keller K L. Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 1993, 57(1): 1-22. DOI: 10.1177/002224299305700101.
[2] Enes Y S O, Demo G, Porto R B, et al. What is next for consumer-based brand equity in digital brands? Research itineraries and new challenges. Sustainability, 2024, 16(13): 5412. DOI: 10.3390/su16135412.
[3] Aaker D A, Keller K L. Consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 1990, 54(1): 27-41. DOI: 10.1177/002224299005400102.
[4] Peng C, Bijmolt T H A, Volckner F, et al. A meta-analysis of brand extension success: The effects of parent brand equity and extension fit. Journal of Marketing, 2023, 87(6): 906-927. DOI: 10.1177/00222429231164654.
[5] Deng Q C, Messinger P R. Dimensions of brand-extension fit. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2022, 39(3): 764-787. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.09.013.
[6] Simon C J, Sullivan M W. The measurement and determinants of brand equity: A financial approach. Marketing Science, 1993, 12(1): 28-52. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.12.1.28.
[7] Park C W, Jun S Y, Shocker A D. Composite branding alliances: An investigation of extension and feedback effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 1996, 33(4): 453-466. DOI: 10.1177/002224379603300407.
[8] Ahn J, Kim A, Sung Y. The effects of sensory fit on consumer evaluations of co-branding. International Journal of Advertising, 2020, 39(4): 486-503. DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2019.1652518.
[9] Paydas Turan C. Success drivers of co-branding: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 2021, 45(4): 911-936. DOI: 10.1111/ijcs.12682.
[10] Nguyen H T, Ross W T, Pancras J, et al. Market-based drivers of cobranding success. Journal of Business Research, 2020, 115: 122-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.04.046.
[11] Bacchiega E, Colucci M, Denicolo V, et al. Only the ugly face? A theoretical model of brand dilution. Management Science, 2024, 70(5): 3182-3199. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.00852.
[12] Kim W. The critical factors affecting the consumer reselling of limited edition products: A case in the Korean fashion sector. Sustainability, 2020, 12(19): 8181. DOI: 10.3390/su12198181.
[13] Huang D. Research on the influence of IP co-branding on consumers' purchase intention: Mediated by consumers' perceived value. SHS Web of Conferences, 2024, 181: 01026. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/202418101026.
[14] Kang Y, Feng Q. Impact of brand and IP co-branding on retention intention: Consumer perception perspective. Procedia Computer Science, 2024, 242: 243-248. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2024.08.249.
[15] Pop Mart. Public product pages and collections for cross-IP products. 2026. https://www.popmart.com/.
[16] StockX. Public product pages for Pop Mart cross-IP products. 2026. https://stockx.com/.
[17] GDELT Project. GDELT DOC 2.0 API. 2026. https://api.gdeltproject.org/api/v2/doc/doc.
[18] Wikimedia Foundation. Wikimedia Pageviews API. 2026. https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/.
[19] Pop Mart. Annual report 2025. 2026. https://prod-out-res.popmart.com/cms/ANNUAL_REPORT_2025_bd4e173872.pdf.