Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung campaign

Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung, Intelligent Eyewear campaign, 2026

University of Hertfordshire · 5CTA2035 Concept to Customer · Week 1

Cross-Industry
Collaboration

Heritage, strategy and brand DNA. How two organisations combine capabilities to create a customer benefit neither could deliver alone.

Lecture plus Strategic Selection Lab Level 5 Research cut-off 2 October 2026

Before we start · A look back at L4

Last year: the Mini Brand Reboot

For four weeks you were the creative director of one fashion brand, refreshing how it tells its story and connects with people. That whole project ran on one simple model.

L4 model

Concept

The idea that renews the brand.

→

L4 model

Story

The narrative and visual world that carries it.

→

L4 model

Customer

The person who feels it and buys in.

You did this

Read a brand's DNA

Researched identity, customer and tone. Found the white space where it could feel new.

You did this

Built a story

A concept statement and a moodboard that gave the refresh a mood, a message and a tone.

You did this

Shot a campaign

Planned and ran a real photoshoot, then edited it into a creative-direction portfolio and an A3 reflective poster.

You already own the core muscle: read a brand, build a story, make it visual. Today we keep all of that and add one thing, a second brand.

The step up

L4 refreshed one brand. L5 marries two.

Last year · L4

One brand, refreshed

One fashion brand.
Renew its image and story.
Output: a campaign.
Concept → Story → Customer.

This year · L5

Two brands, combined

One fashion + one non-fashion brand.
Combine capabilities into something new.
Output: a hero product and its hype.
The full Concept → Customer chain.

Nothing from L4 is wasted

Brand DNA, storytelling, the customer journey, your campaign craft: all of it comes back.

The campaign you were proud of last year is literally Deliverable 3 this year, the hype asset suite. You are not starting over. You are levelling up.

Where we are

Concept to Customer, in plain language

Everything you own was an idea before it was an object. The route from that idea to the moment someone can actually buy it has five stages. This module walks all five. Today we are standing at the very front.

Stage 01

Concept

What is the idea, who is it for, and who do you build it with?

→

Stage 02

Development

Turn the idea into a spec: materials, fit, costs, samples.

→

Stage 03

Production

Someone has to actually make it, at quality, at a price.

→

Stage 04

Route to market

Channel, launch, story, price. How it reaches people.

→

Stage 05

Customer

A real person buys it, uses it, and tells someone.

You are here: Week 1, stage 01

Stage one has one question we answer today: who do you build this with? That is what a cross-industry collaboration is. Two organisations combining what they each already own, to make something neither could make alone.

The test we use all day

What separates a real collaboration from two logos

Most collaborations fail one of these three. Hold every case today, and your own proposal this afternoon, against all three.

Condition 01

Both identities survive

You can still tell who both partners are. If one brand is erased and only its name is left on the label, it has failed before launch.

Condition 02

A real person gains something

Someone gets something useful, desirable or meaningful that neither partner gave them before. Not a press release. A benefit.

Condition 03

Somebody can actually make it

Who manufactures it, at what price, through which channel, with what support. Capability, not a mood board.

Do this now, two minutes

Name one collaboration you actually bought into, and one that felt decorative.

Say which of the three conditions the decorative one failed. We will come back to your answer at the end of the morning.

Today

The shape of the day

Morning · 10:00 to 12:30

Theory, the brief, and five cases

10:00 to 10:15

Where this sits, and the three conditions

10:15 to 10:40

The assignment brief, start to finish

10:40 to 11:15

How collaboration developed, and brand DNA

11:15 to 11:25

Break

11:25 to 12:15

Five worked cases, 2019 to 2026

12:15 to 12:30

Synthesis against the three conditions

Afternoon · 13:30 to 16:00

Strategic Selection Lab

13:30 to 13:45

Framing: useful versus decorative

13:45 to 14:30

Brand DNA mapping, both partners, with sources

14:30 to 14:40

Break and pair-share

14:40 to 15:20

Choose the pairing, write the proposal

15:20 to 15:45

Peer review in triads, scored out of 15

15:45 to 16:00

Revise, submit, exit ticket

Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung campaign, 2026

Assignment 1 · Issued 5 October 2026 · Submission date to be confirmed

The Brief,
before the theory

You are the Creative Lead on a brand reboot. Find two brands with complementary DNA, one fashion and one not, and propose the collaboration that reboots them both.

100% of Assignment 1 One A3 PDF portfolio Submitted via Canvas

The brief at a glance

Four facts, then the whole task in one sentence

100%

Of your Assignment 1 grade

5 Oct

Brief issued

TBC

Submission deadline, confirmed on Canvas

One A3 PDF

A single portfolio document

The whole task, in one sentence

Pick two brands that belong together, design one hero product that proves it, and show how you would make people want it.

Everything else in the brief is detail about how to evidence those three moves. The module title is the structure: you are working the Concept end of concept to customer, so you are judged on the thinking, not on how pretty the render is.

The task

The mandatory mix, and it is not negotiable

Two brands, distinct but complementary DNA. One must come from each side of this line.

Brand A

A fashion or apparel brand

Heritage house or contemporary label. The partner that brings the aesthetic language, the customer relationship and the fashion credibility.

Heritage houseContemporary labelStreetwear

Brand B

A non-fashion entity

Technology, transport, aerospace, optics, science, gaming, food, museums. The partner that brings a capability fashion cannot buy in.

LeicaTeslaNASARIMOWAAppleSpaceX

Does not count as Brand B: another fashion label, a fashion celebrity, a stylist, a model, or a magazine. If it lives inside the fashion industry, it is not cross-industry.

The examples are a starting point, not a shortlist. A smaller, stranger, better-argued partner will always beat Tesla chosen because it sounded impressive.

What you hand in

Four parts, one A3 PDF portfolio

Part 01

Strategic rationale

Around 500 words. Why do these two brands belong together in 2026? Link it to cultural trends and brand equity, using sources you can name.

Part 02

Product ideation

High-fidelity mock-ups of one hero product. Generative AI for the first concept and mood, then CLO3D or digital compositing for the co-branding and material detail.

Part 03

The hype asset suite

Three to five social campaign images showing the product in the world it is meant to live in. Built to be seeded, not to sit in a folder.

Part 04

Influencer seeding strategy

Five named cultural leaders who get the first physical unit. Each one justified by who actually follows them, not by follower count.

The thing students miss every year

Three of the four parts are visual. One is written.

The rationale is where the marks for thinking live, and it is 500 words. Make every sentence carry evidence.

How you are expected to work

The hybrid workflow, digital to physical

This mirrors how creative direction actually runs now. Use AI for speed at the front, then prove the idea technically, then build the assets that create demand. Each step corrects the one before it.

Step 01 · Ideate fast

Generative AI

Midjourney, Stable Diffusion or similar. Generate the concept, the mood and the first silhouette. Cheap, fast, disposable. Expect to throw most of it away.

→

Step 02 · Make it real

CLO3D or compositing

Refine the hero product so the co-branding, materials and construction hold up. This is where a picture becomes a proposal somebody could cost.

→

Step 03 · Create the demand

Hype asset suite

Put the validated product into its environment. Three to five social-ready images, then the five people who receive it first.

Be able to say what each tool did. AI output straight to the portfolio with no refinement step is not a workflow, it is a screenshot. The refinement is the evidence of your judgement.

What is actually being assessed

Five things this project is testing

That you understand how global fashion brands operate and adapt across different markets, not just how they look.

That you can apply strategic thinking to a real brand problem, rather than describe a brand you like.

That you use research, data and insight so your proposal rests on evidence a stranger could check.

That you can communicate it in writing and visually, at a professional standard, in one document.

That you have considered ethics, sustainability and cultural difference instead of treating them as a closing paragraph.

Bridge into the rest of the morning

The brief tells you what to hand in. It does not tell you how to choose the two brands.

That is what the next hour is for: how collaboration developed, what brand DNA actually is, and five cases that got it right or expensively wrong.

Theory · Twenty-five years in seven objects

How collaboration developed

Not a history lesson. A shift in who is allowed to confer credibility. The house brings craft and distribution. The outsider brings a cultural language, or now a technology, the house cannot manufacture internally.

2001

Louis Vuitton
x Stephen Sprouse

Graffiti sprayed over a protected monogram. The codes become open to reinterpretation.

2002

adidas
x Yohji Yamamoto

Y-3 debuts as a sustained platform, not a one-season interruption. Still running.

2017

Louis Vuitton
x Supreme

The release becomes the event. Access, queues and resale become the real story.

2019

Dior
x RIMOWA

Heritage moves into a manufacturing process. The motif is anodised into the shell, not printed on it.

2023

Tiffany & Co.
x Nike

Jewellery codes enter a street icon. Resale then exposes who could actually get one.

2024

Gentle Monster
x Mugler, x Jennie

The brand becomes a venue. Two separate projects, one host, two different worlds.

Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung eyewear

2025 to 2026

Capability era

Google, Samsung, HeiQ, Meta. Fashion desire joined to computation and biotechnology.

These models coexist, they do not replace one another. A 2026 cultural collaboration is not automatically less sophisticated than a technical one. Choose the model that fits your two brands, not the newest one.

Theory · The two routes

Interruption, or platform

Everything on the previous strip is one of these two. Decide which one you are proposing this afternoon, because they are judged differently.

Route 01 · 2001, Sprouse

The interruption

A short, loud intervention on codes that already exist. It borrows the house's recognisability and defaces it on purpose. Fast to launch, high attention, finite life.

Fails when: the shock is the only idea, and nothing about the product changes.

Route 02 · 2002, Y-3

The platform

A standing line built from genuinely complementary capabilities: performance engineering plus couture cutting. Slow to build, compounding value, still trading two decades on.

Fails when: neither partner commits the capability it promised, and it becomes a licence.

Carry this into the afternoon

Your proposal must declare which route it is taking.

An interruption gets judged on cultural precision. A platform gets judged on whether both capabilities are real and committed.

Method

Brand DNA beyond the logo

Describe a brand you know well without naming its logo. What is left is the DNA. This afternoon you will audit two partners against these six fields, and every field needs a concrete cue or example, not an adjective.

Field 01

Brand values

What belief is evidenced by actual behaviour, not by the mission statement?

Field 02

Aesthetic signature

Name a shape, colour, material or tone, then cite a specific example of it.

Field 03

Target customer

Who, with what need, and on what evidence? Not a demographic guess.

Field 04

Product territory

What can this partner credibly make or deliver? This is the capability question.

Field 05

Cultural associations

Communities, rituals, places or symbols the brand genuinely occupies.

Field 06

Cannot compromise

One concrete code, quality or behaviour that must survive the collaboration.

Banned words in your map: innovative, luxury, sustainable, iconic, premium. They describe nothing. Replace each with a cue a stranger could verify.

Do this now, five minutes, in pairs

Pick a brand in this room. A bag, a trainer, a phone. Describe it in all six fields without ever saying its name.

Your partner guesses the brand. If they cannot, your fields are adjectives, not evidence. This is exactly the task you repeat at 13:45 with your two real partners.

Method · Worked example

What a finished DNA map looks like

One fashion partner, one non-fashion partner, every cell a concrete cue a stranger could check. No banned adjectives anywhere on this slide.

Field	Nike · fashion partner	Dyson · non-fashion partner
Brand values	Performance is for every body. Backed a polarising athlete, Kaepernick, in 2018 at real commercial risk.	Engineering solves the problem. Publicly cites 5,127 failed vacuum prototypes as proof of method.
Aesthetic signature	The Swoosh with no wordmark; the Air unit left visibly exposed; bold single-colour blocking.	Internal mechanics left on show; the motor as hero; nickel-grey with one accent colour.
Target customer	Buys for identity and culture first, sport second. Resale demand far exceeds actual running use.	Pays a premium for visibly engineered home tech. Chooses the machine that looks solved.
Product territory	Footwear, performance apparel, sole and foam engineering, drop-based retail.	Compact high-speed digital motors, airflow, batteries, filtration.
Cultural associations	Basketball courts, hip-hop, the SNKRS drop queue.	The design-museum shelf, engineering-as-status, the demo-table reveal.
Cannot compromise	The Swoosh stays visible; the silhouette must still read as a Nike.	The engineering stays visible. Hide the motor and the brand dies.

Close the map in four lines. Shared value: performance you can see is engineered, not claimed. Complementary capability: Nike owns the body, the wardrobe and drop culture; Dyson owns a compact motor neither could buy in. Likely tension: Dyson's clinical restraint versus Nike's bold colour. Customer opportunity: active cooling, worn, that athletes actually want on.

Discipline

Separate what you know from what you think

Weak analysis blurs three different kinds of statement into one confident paragraph. Keep them separate, in your DNA map and in your proposal: what is true, what you think it means, and what you are suggesting.

Type 01

Fact

Dated, sourced, checkable. A price, a launch date, a published figure. Two sources per partner, at least one official.

Type 02

Interpretation

Your strategic reading of the fact. Legitimate and necessary, but must be labelled as yours.

Type 03

Proposal

What you are designing. Never written as though it already exists or has already been validated.

Common failures

Turning a missing metric into zero. Treating an announcement as a sale. Quoting media value as revenue. Calling a manufacturer claim a tested result.

What good looks like

"Launch price was X on date Y [source]. I read that as a positioning signal, not a sales result. My proposal assumes Z, which I would validate by W."

Gentle Monster, Intelligent Eyewear campaign, accessed 2 Oct 2026

Case 01 · Fashion x Consumer technology

Gentle Monster
x Google x Samsung

Google announced its Gentle Monster and Warby Parker eyewear partnerships in May 2025. The May 2026 I/O reveal introduced designs for an autumn collection. As of 2 October 2026 the brand page still describes the debut as upcoming.

Teach this as a development and campaign case, not a proven retail success. No sell-through, revenue or conversion figures were disclosed in the reviewed sources.

The exchange is capability plus desirability. Gentle Monster contributes sculptural frame design and fashion authority. Google brings Gemini and its mobile ecosystem. Samsung helps make the electronics wearable.

Three-way capability splitAudio first, not AR displayAutumn debut pending

Google I/O 2026 reveal

Case 01 · DNA audit

Three partners, three contributions

Partner	Brand DNA	Contribution to the hybrid
Gentle Monster	Expressive silhouettes, curated image-making, fashion credibility	Distinctive frame language and a fashion-led campaign
Google	Useful information, AI assistance, mobile ecosystem	Gemini interaction and contextual tasks
Samsung	Consumer electronics and device integration	Hardware contribution and phone-connected wearability

The fashion-first reading: does the technology support the wearer's style and daily routine? Keeping recognisable eyewear proportions lets the object belong to an accessory wardrobe before a customer discovers what it does.

Campaign features Alex Consani and Anok Yai. The line "Defined by Distinctive Aesthetics" puts design at the centre of the proposition, ahead of function.

Case 02a · Archive translation

Mugler
x Gentle Monster

Announced July 2024, launched 17 July. Spiral 01 reinterprets the house's Fourmis eyewear from the 1997 Les Insectes couture collection. Spiral 02 translates contemporary spiral lines into a smoother frame with chrome branding.

Gentle Monster provides eyewear execution and its experimental design context. Mugler provides a geometry customers can recognise and trace back to a specific archive moment.

$380

Spiral 02 launch price

$480

Spiral 01 launch price

Launch prices are positioning signals. They establish nothing about sell-through.

Official film, 18s, loops

Mugler x Gentle Monster, official Spiral 01 launch film, 2024

Gentle Monster, Jentle Salon, launched 1 May 2024. Imagery by Petra Collins

Case 02b · World-building

Jennie
x Gentle Monster

Jentle Salon launched 1 May 2024 with online and in-store distribution, and 13 pop-ups announced by the brand. Jennie brings a recognisable personal style and an audience relationship. Gentle Monster supplies the product platform and the retail world.

Charms let customers personalise the frames. Petra Collins's imagery creates a dreamlike salon rather than Mugler's futuristic insect silhouette. The brand calls it their third project, signalling continuity beyond a one-off endorsement.

Product details, campaign imagery and physical destinations give people something to photograph and share. That amplification is an inference, not measured reach.

13 pop-up locationsCharms as participationThird project, not a one-off

Jentle Salon campaign Pop-up film

Case 02 · Comparison

One host, two different worlds

Gentle Monster ran both projects in the same year without claiming a three-party product. This is the clearest available demonstration that a fashion brand can act as a venue for other identities while keeping its own.

Mugler route

Archive translation

Start from a dated, specific reference: 1997 Les Insectes. The design argument is traceable. Risk: the reference is invisible to anyone who does not know the archive.

Jennie route

Participatory world

Start from a person, a mood and a place. The customer can enter it through charms and pop-ups. Risk: the world lives in the photograph and never reaches the product.

Spiral geometry carried into the frame itself

Campaign world: mirrored studio, sculpted movement

Jentle Salon: softer, participatory, destination-led

Case 03 · Fashion x Industrial manufacture

Dior x RIMOWA

Revealed at the Dior Men's Summer 2020 show in June 2019, with broad retail availability reported January 2020. Both houses sit within LVMH, which explains institutional proximity but does not by itself prove creative fit.

RIMOWA brings aluminium-shell engineering, protective construction and the visual recognition of a travel case. Dior contributes the Oblique pattern, leather detailing and atelier authority. Dior's own product copy explains how anodising creates the vintage-effect colour on the aluminium.

The hybrid is more than a printed logo. A material process was adapted to accommodate a fashion surface while keeping the shell's useful identity.

$2,440

Entry, personal clutch

$4,620

Top of range, Jan 2020

Dior x RIMOWA aluminium case with Oblique gradient

Dior x RIMOWA, anodised aluminium with Oblique motif

Savoir-faire making-of film

Case 03 · Where the heritage actually lives

Heritage in the making process

The strongest lesson in this case is that heritage can live in a manufacturing method, an existing product shape and a customer ritual, not only in a motif. The compact cases let RIMOWA's construction become a daily accessory, while Dior gains access to specialised luggage manufacture.

Engineering the shell before any surface decision is made

The Oblique motif applied into the anodised aluminium, not printed over it

Output: a luggage-derived object for use at the destination

A luggage-shaped handbag must still justify what it carries and how it is used. Form borrowed from another category is a starting point, not an argument.

Nike x Tiffany & Co. Air Force 1 1837, released 7 March 2023

Case 04 · Luxury x Street icon

Tiffany & Co.
x Nike

Launched 7 March 2023 at $400, following the AF1's fortieth anniversary and sitting within Tiffany's push toward a younger cultural audience.

Nike supplies the familiar silhouette, basketball-to-street heritage and a release audience. Tiffany supplies its distinctive blue, archival lettering, silver expertise and gifting associations. The black suede upper keeps the product wearable; blue Swooshes and co-branded silver heel plates make the jeweller's codes legible at detail level.

"A Legendary Pair" claims shared American iconic status. Note what it does not claim: any new performance benefit.

925 silver standardLegacy comparatorDivided reception

Campaign production film Independent review

Case 04 · The access problem

Visibility is not availability

$11m

Media impact value in five days, Launchmetrics via Vogue Business

76%

Of that MIV from social channels

$400

Retail price at launch

~$1,200

Release-day resale reported by Business Insider

MIV is an estimated media-value metric. It is not revenue, not profit, and not unique audience reach. Students quote it as a success figure every year. Do not.

Business Insider reported sell-outs through SNKRS and Tiffany's raffle alongside customer frustration. A widely recognised street silhouette did not ensure widely accessible ownership. That gap is the strategic lesson, and it is a design decision, not an accident.

Ask of your own proposal: who actually receives value here, and does scarcity strengthen the identity at the expense of the customer experience?

Tiffany Nike packaging and silver accessories

The ritual object: blue box, co-branded silver, the gifting language Tiffany owns

Where the jeweller's DNA is actually legible: the 925 silver heel plate

Case 05 · Fashion x Biotechnology

Coperni x HeiQ
C+ Carewear

Introduced around the Spring/Summer 2026 runway presentation in 2025, with Swiss textile biotechnology specialist HeiQ. October 2025 coverage described an exclusive online pre-order.

This is a clearer biotechnology case than an ordinary smart-eyewear edition, because the claimed function lives inside the textile treatment. A synbiotic blend combines probiotics with prebiotics: microorganisms plus the ingredients that support them, delivered gradually through a bio-based matrix.

£180

Regenerating Top, UK page, 2 Oct 2026

Washes claimed effective, manufacturer

Price and durability are current claims. Neither is proof of sales or of independently demonstrated skincare efficacy.

Coperni C+ Carewear, campaign imagery credit Bettina Pittaluga, courtesy Coperni

Official C+ campaign film

Case 05 · The hardest communication problem in the set

Selling a benefit nobody can see

The garment is visually restrained by design, so the campaign has to carry the entire explanation. Paloma Elsesser's casting connects the proposition to the body and to daily care rather than to spectacle. The founders describe "a shared desire to take better care of ourselves".

Partner	Contribution	Non-negotiable to test
Coperni	Wearable silhouette and the fashion story	A comfortable, recognisable garment rather than a laboratory demonstration
HeiQ	Skin Care finishing treatment and material development	Evidence supporting the technical claims and repeat-use expectations

The strategic shape: fashion supplies desirability and an intimate wearing context. The specialist supplies a function the fashion label could not credibly develop alone.

The product gives the eye almost nothing to hold on to

So the campaign carries the proposition instead

Official demo, 30s, loops

Meta Ray-Ban Display, official pedestrian-navigation demo, launched 17 September 2025

Extra comparator · Fashion x Spatial computing

Meta x Ray-Ban
Display

Make wearable computing socially familiar through eyewear people already accept, then support it with a fitting and service proposition.

It qualifies as a technical collaboration through display computing and EMG wristband biosensing, not through a claim of full spatial AR. The strategic question moves past the launch: what makes someone keep wearing it in month six?

$799

US launch bundle price

7m+

FY2025 AI-glasses units, portfolio-wide

The 7m+ figure covers EssilorLuxottica's whole AI-glasses portfolio. It is not Display sell-through. No isolated Display figure or ROI was found.

Analysis

Evidence has different meanings

Across these five cases we have quoted prices, media values, unit volumes and wash counts. They are not interchangeable, and treating them as one category is the most common analytical failure in this assignment.

Signal of

Price

Positioning and intended audience. Says nothing about how many sold.

Signal of

Media value

Estimated attention, by a proprietary model. Not revenue, not reach.

Signal of

Unit volume

Actual demand, but check the boundary. Portfolio totals are not product totals.

Signal of

Product claim

What the maker asserts. Battery hours, wash counts. Not an independent test.

Three rules for your proposal. A missing metric is not zero. An announcement is not a sale. A pre-order is not a delivery.

And one more. When you genuinely cannot find a figure, write the research question you would need to answer. That scores better than inventing confidence.

Synthesis

Five cases, tested against the three conditions

Collaboration	Strongest DNA transfer	Main risk	Why we are teaching it
Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung	Frame language survives the electronics	Avant-garde label becomes aesthetically generic	Capability plus desirability, before any proof of sale
Mugler x Gentle Monster	1997 archive geometry into a wearable frame	Reference invisible without the archive knowledge	Archive translation as a design argument
Jennie x Gentle Monster	World, charms and destination as participation	The world stays in the photograph	Audience-led launch and brand as venue
Dior x RIMOWA	Anodising process adapted to carry a motif	Luxury echo chamber, LVMH proximity is not fit	The benchmark for genuine capability exchange
Tiffany x Nike	Colour, silver and ritual at detail level	Scarcity undermines the customer experience	Hype is not strategy, and access is a design choice
Coperni x HeiQ	Function moved inside the textile itself	Invisible benefit with contested evidence	Biotech capability and the burden of proof

Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung collaboration campaign background

Gentle Monster x Google x Samsung, Intelligent Eyewear campaign, 2026

Afternoon · 13:30 to 16:00

Strategic
Selection Lab

Map the DNA. Choose the pairing. Write the proposal. Defend it in front of two peers and revise it before you leave.

Sourced DNA map One-page Marriage of Brands proposal Peer review scored out of 15

Run of show

How the two and a half hours work

13:30 to 13:45

Framing

Quick-write: one useful collaboration, one decorative one, with a reason. Tutor compares Dior/RIMOWA against Tiffany/Nike. Pairs identify a shared value and a complementary capability.

13:45 to 14:30

Brand DNA mapping

Choose both partners and get eligibility checked. Audit the fashion partner with two sources including one official, plus three visual examples. Repeat for the non-fashion partner. Annotate shared values, complementary assets and one likely tension.

14:30 to 14:40

Break and pair-share

Ten genuine minutes off. Then two minutes each to explain your map, one minute to record the strongest challenge you received.

14:40 to 15:20

Selection and proposal

Compare your first pair against one alternative on synergy, feasibility and relevance. Define one hero concept. Write the rationale in 150 words maximum. Feasibility check: who makes it, price positioning, channel, dependencies, one major risk, one measurable success criterion.

15:20 to 16:00

Peer review, revision and submission

Triads. Three eight-minute rounds, rotating presenter, reviewer and evidence challenger. Then eight minutes to revise individually and record what changed and why, and seven minutes to submit and write your exit ticket.

Tutor checkpoint at 14:30. Unsupported pairs get returned for revision. Nothing is approved just because the logos look good together.

Lab tool · Open as a linked slide

Collaboration Roulette

Spin one fashion brand and one non-fashion brand. The pairing is the research prompt for the afternoon: prove they belong together, or argue why they fail.

Random pairing generator

Fashion brand

Non-fashion brand

Launch roulette

How to use it

Spin, then test the fit

For each pairing, write the possible shared value, complementary capability, customer benefit and one obvious risk before you commit.

Tutor control

Approve the route

If the pairing is impossible to evidence, too close to an existing live collaboration, or unsuitable for the room, redraw or assign a cleaner alternative.

Next step: once the pairing is approved, complete the Brand DNA map for both partners.

Deliverable 01

The Brand DNA map

Six fields, both partners, evidence in every cell. At least two sources per partner including one official source.

Audit field	Fashion partner	Non-fashion partner
Brand values What belief is evidenced by behaviour?	Evidence or example	Evidence or example
Aesthetic signature Name shape, colour, material or tone, then cite one.	Evidence or example	Evidence or example
Target customer Who, what need, which evidence?	Evidence or example	Evidence or example
Product territory What can this partner credibly make or deliver?	Evidence or example	Evidence or example
Cultural associations Communities, rituals, places or symbols.	Evidence or example	Evidence or example
Cannot compromise One concrete code, quality or behaviour to protect.	Evidence or example	Evidence or example

Then close the map with four lines: shared value, complementary capability, likely tension, customer opportunity. Mark interpretation and assumptions separately from fact.

Deliverable 02

The Marriage of Brands proposal

One page, these parts

Working title for the pairing
Rationale, 150 words maximum
Customer, specific and evidenced
Hero concept, one idea only
Moodboard, three annotated cues
Non-negotiable from each partner
Feasibility, maker, price, channel, dependency, risk
Success criterion, one measurable

A moodboard is three annotated cues, not an unlabelled collage. Annotation is where the marks are.

15:10 to 15:20

Proposal stress test

Before peer review, check the idea against the three conditions from the morning.

1. Brand synergy both identities survive
2. Customer benefit a specific person gains something
3. Feasibility maker, price position, channel, dependency and risk

Write one sentence: Together, A and B help [specific customer] to [job] through [object or experience], because [complementary strengths].

Precision check. You are not designing a full collection today. Keep one hero idea and make the logic easy to defend.

Deliverable 02 · Worked example

The same pairing as a one-page proposal

Working title

Nike x Dyson · AIRFLOW

Rationale. Training-wear now sells on measurable performance, not slogans. Nike owns the athlete's wardrobe and the drop; Dyson owns compact-motor airflow no apparel brand can build in-house. Together they make cooling a visible, worn feature, not a fabric claim. Credible because both brands already sell visible engineering as status.

Customer

Endurance and HIIT trainers who overheat mid-session. Evidenced by handheld-fan and cooling-towel behaviour in gyms, and the growth of the sports-cooling wearable market.

Hero concept · one idea

A training vest with a Dyson micro-motor at the back yoke driving ducted airflow across the spine, stepping up with exertion.

Non-negotiables, one per partner

Nike: Swoosh visible, the vest reads as a Nike silhouette.
Dyson: the motor is exposed and celebrated, never hidden.

Feasibility

Maker: Dyson motor unit, Nike apparel build.
Price: premium tier, placeholder to be sourced.
Channel: SNKRS drop plus Dyson demo.
Dependency: battery weight and run-time.
Risk: reads as a gimmick, not a tool.

Success criterion, one measurable: a stated skin-temperature drop versus a control vest in a wear-test, or first-drop sell-through inside 48 hours. Pick one and commit to it.

Worked example, not a real partnership. Notice every line traces back to a cell in the DNA map. That is the join your proposal is marked on.

Deliverable 03

Peer review, scored out of 15

Three dimensions, three evidence-based scores. Judge reasoning and evidence, not drawing skill or expensive technology. Every score needs a reason.

Score	Brand synergy	Feasibility	Cultural relevance
1	One identity erased, or the rationale contradicts it	No deliverable or capability owner	No audience or need defined
2	Mainly logos, generic compatibility	Major delivery gap, few constraints considered	Broad audience, unsupported trend claim
3	Both codes visible, plausible shared value	Plausible owner and channel, key dependency identified	Specific audience and plausible need, limited evidence
4	Codes and complementary capabilities integrated with evidence	Delivery route, price, channel and main risk explained	Sourced need and convincing 2026 timing
5	Distinctive hybrid protects both identities and resolves a tension	Practical concept with dependencies, support and a credible test plan	Strong audience evidence, distinct benefit, measurable validation

Read the weakest dimension first. Any dimension scoring 1 or 2 needs revision regardless of the total. A high total does not override an infeasible product or missing customer evidence.

15:53 to 16:00

Submit, then the exit ticket

Submit three files

Named with module and your name

Sourced Brand DNA map
One-page Marriage of Brands proposal
Completed peer review with your recorded revision

Homework

Validate the assumption

Test your customer assumption through desk research. Refine the hero concept, the price and channel, and three visual brand codes. Keep this evidence: you will need it for the route-to-market work later in the module.

Exit ticket, write it before you leave

"The element I protected was ________.
The assumption I must test is ________."

5CTA2035 Concept to Customer · Week 1 · Research cut-off 2 October 2026. All imagery is used for teaching preparation from public sources with credits retained. Check permission before publishing externally or uploading to the LMS.

Tutor prep · Not for projection

Film index, open these before the session

Two films are embedded in this file and play offline. The rest are public links, reachable from the play chips on each case slide.

Check availability on the day. Platform links move or gate behind cookie prompts. If a link fails, the case stills and the two embedded films carry the full argument without internet.

Reading list · Click any source to open it

The five cases, with their sources

Every case in today's deck is backed by these. Open the official page first, then the reception piece. Links open in a new tab.

Case 01 · GM × Google × Samsung

Google partnership announcement Google I/O eyewear reveal Gentle Monster Intelligent Eyewear Samsung first-look The Verge reception

Case 02 · GM × Mugler / × Jennie

Gentle Monster Mugler collection NYLON launch & reception Gentle Monster Jentle Salon V Magazine Jentle Salon

Case 03 · Dior × RIMOWA

Vogue runway + interview Dior anodising detail Hypebae launch update GQ reception

Case 04 · Tiffany × Nike

Tiffany & Co. official Nike SNKRS product + heritage Business Insider access & resale Vogue Business MIV + response GQ price & date

Case 05 · Coperni × HeiQ

Coperni C+ product page HeiQ success story Dazed launch interview Fashionography pre-order

Comparator · Meta × Ray-Ban Display

Meta Display launch Ray-Ban product + use-case EssilorLuxottica FY2025 results AP launch reception

Reading list · Click any source to open it

Theory, frameworks and further reading

For your rationale and your Harvard reference list. The frameworks are where the DNA worksheet comes from. The further links are optional extension examples for students who want a wider reference list.

Brand frameworks (the method)

Kapferer Brand Identity Prism Interbrand brand valuation method Kantar Meaningful · Different · Salient

How collaboration developed

British Vogue LV × Stephen Sprouse (2001)adidas Y-3 history & 2002 debut Vogue LV × Supreme (2017)

Further cases & extension examples

Snap Gucci sponsored AI Lens Meta Coperni limited edition NASA Spinoff aerogel & Coperni bag Grind × Peanuts collection

All links were live at the 2 October 2026 research cut-off. If a page has moved, the publisher and title are enough to re-find it. Official brand pages are primary sources; press pieces are reception, not revenue.

Printable worksheet · A4 PDF included

Brand DNA Mapping

Complete once for the fashion partner and once for the non-fashion partner. Every box needs a source or a named visual example.

Partner A

Fashion brand

Partner B

Non-fashion organisation

Brand values

Beliefs evidenced by behaviour, not slogans.

Aesthetic signature

Shape, colour, material, tone or ritual.

Customer and culture

Who buys in, and what communities or symbols matter?

Capability and cannot-compromise

What can they credibly deliver? What must be protected?

Close with four lines: shared value, complementary capability, likely tension, customer opportunity.

Printable worksheet · A4 PDF included

Peer Review Mark Sheet

Score each dimension from 1 to 5. Give a reason for every score. Any 1 or 2 needs revision even if the total looks acceptable.

Dimension

Brand synergy

Identity erased

Logo fit only

Both codes visible

Capabilities integrated

Tension resolved

Feasibility

No owner

Major gap

Plausible route

Risk explained

Test plan credible

Cultural relevance

No audience

Broad trend

Specific need

Sourced timing

Measurable benefit

Keep

Change

Test

Revision recorded

Cross-IndustryCollaboration

Last year: the Mini Brand Reboot

Concept

Story

Customer

Read a brand's DNA

Built a story

Shot a campaign

L4 refreshed one brand. L5 marries two.

One brand, refreshed

Two brands, combined

Concept to Customer, in plain language

Concept

Development

Production

Route to market

Customer

What separates a real collaboration from two logos

Both identities survive

A real person gains something

Somebody can actually make it

The shape of the day

Theory, the brief, and five cases

Where this sits, and the three conditions

The assignment brief, start to finish

How collaboration developed, and brand DNA

Break

Five worked cases, 2019 to 2026

Synthesis against the three conditions

Strategic Selection Lab

Framing: useful versus decorative

Brand DNA mapping, both partners, with sources

Break and pair-share

Choose the pairing, write the proposal

Peer review in triads, scored out of 15

Revise, submit, exit ticket

The Brief,before the theory

Four facts, then the whole task in one sentence

The mandatory mix, and it is not negotiable

A fashion or apparel brand

A non-fashion entity

Four parts, one A3 PDF portfolio

Strategic rationale

Product ideation

The hype asset suite

Influencer seeding strategy

The hybrid workflow, digital to physical

Generative AI

CLO3D or compositing

Hype asset suite

Five things this project is testing

How collaboration developed

Louis Vuittonx Stephen Sprouse

adidasx Yohji Yamamoto

Louis Vuittonx Supreme

Diorx RIMOWA

Tiffany & Co.x Nike

Gentle Monsterx Mugler, x Jennie

Capability era

Interruption, or platform

The interruption

The platform

Brand DNA beyond the logo

Brand values

Aesthetic signature

Target customer

Product territory

Cultural associations

Cannot compromise

What a finished DNA map looks like

Separate what you know from what you think

Fact

Interpretation

Proposal

Gentle Monsterx Google x Samsung

Three partners, three contributions

Muglerx Gentle Monster

Jenniex Gentle Monster

One host, two different worlds

Archive translation

Cross-Industry
Collaboration

The Brief,
before the theory

Louis Vuitton
x Stephen Sprouse

adidas
x Yohji Yamamoto

Louis Vuitton
x Supreme

Dior
x RIMOWA

Tiffany & Co.
x Nike

Gentle Monster
x Mugler, x Jennie

Gentle Monster
x Google x Samsung

Mugler
x Gentle Monster

Jennie
x Gentle Monster

Tiffany & Co.
x Nike

Coperni x HeiQ
C+ Carewear

Meta x Ray-Ban
Display

Strategic
Selection Lab