Fleet Co-Branding Approval Checklist

Putting two business identities on one vehicle creates two approval questions: which exact assets and words may be used, and how should their relationship appear? This checklist keeps those questions traceable for a fleet graphics request. Use it for a project involving a primary operator and a named partner. The record organizes supplied instructions; the responsible businesses must establish any permissions or agreement questions through their own process.

Fictional Alderwick Mechanical van with a smaller separate Solen Controls partner identity

Original fictional commercial planning concept; not a completed customer installation.

Define the relationship before arranging the logos

Name the primary vehicle operator and the proposed secondary business. Write a plain explanation of why both identities are requested. Record the exact public wording supplied by the responsible parties, including any relationship descriptor. Do not allow the designer to infer whether the second identity represents a supplier, partner, owner or another role from an attached logo alone.

Keep the requested use concrete: identified vehicles, proposed views and the current project. If the parties have not settled what may be said about their relationship, keep that wording pending. A polished two-logo layout can otherwise make an unconfirmed business claim look final. The brief should explain what has actually been supplied and which person can resolve the open question.

Collect one controlled asset source for each identity

Obtain the current logo files and supplied usage instructions from each responsible source. Record filenames or asset references, version and contact. Keep the two asset sets identifiable. An image copied from a partner’s website may help explain which business is intended, but it should not be silently substituted for the actual artwork and instructions supplied for the job.

Record any actual approved wording, color references or placement conditions alongside the relevant identity. Where instructions conflict, identify the specific conflict rather than choosing the easiest interpretation. Ask the responsible parties to settle it. The graphics provider needs coherent current sources; it should not have to decide one business’s authority over another business’s mark from a folder full of unrelated downloads.

Map each supplied decision to the proposed use

Create a row linking the identity, decision source, permitted use as supplied, affected vehicles and proof reference. Record any actual limits or review conditions stated by the responsible contact. Do not extend a response about one event vehicle to every vehicle in the fleet without asking whether that broader use has been addressed.

Use the working record below to capture the primary and secondary identities, actual asset sources, proposed areas, decision references and remaining actions. The download is a local planning note for your project, not an authorization generated by Pelican Wraps. Retain the underlying business records through the normal process and share only the project information needed for the graphics assessment.

Agree which identity leads the message

Ask the business owners to define the visual hierarchy and intended customer understanding. State which identity should be recognized first and how the secondary identity should be introduced. Give the designer that relationship and the actual vehicle photographs. Avoid an instruction to make both logos as large as possible when that conflicts with the customer message or the supplied brand instructions.

The Alderwick Mechanical and Solen Controls illustration demonstrates a primary identity with a smaller separate mark. It is a fictional concept, not evidence of a real partnership. Your actual proof should be reviewed against the parties’ current instructions. A visual example can help discuss hierarchy without establishing rights, final dimensions or the suitability of a treatment for the real vehicle.

Review copy and identity placement together

Check the current proof for the correct asset versions, exact relationship wording and proposed views. Ask each responsible reviewer to identify what they are approving. A partner may confirm its logo treatment without approving the operator’s service claims; the operator may approve the overall message while another asset question remains unresolved.

Record decisions against one proof version. Consolidate comments so the designer receives a coherent request rather than separate contradictory instructions. If a revision changes the relationship wording or moves an identity into a different context, identify that change and obtain the relevant review. Do not assume an earlier positive comment applies to every later version simply because the same two company names remain visible.

Define the update and end-of-use contacts

Identify who will report a changed logo, revised relationship or request to end the co-branded treatment. Record the affected units and file custodian. This makes the current design easier to manage after staff changes. It also prevents a later replacement inquiry from automatically restoring a secondary identity whose status has not been checked.

If the business expects a limited period of use, use the temporary partnership plan for the end-state and follow-up actions. This checklist establishes the initial two-party approval chain. Keep any actual review date or condition supplied by the parties with the case. Do not invent a universal approval lifetime or assume that an old proof remains the current instruction indefinitely.

Request a defined co-branded graphics scope

Send Pelican Wraps current vehicle photographs, the unit list, both controlled asset sources, exact public wording, hierarchy instructions and the relevant decision references. Identify pending questions and one coordinating contact. Explain the desired treatment and timing, and ask what additional information or assessment is needed for the actual project.

Use the fleet graphics service for the commercial work and the artwork service for file and proof questions. A useful inquiry presents one current brief with identifiable decision owners. It lets the provider assess a real requested scope while the businesses keep responsibility for their relationship, supplied permissions and public claims. Keep the completed record with the current proof so later buyers can understand why both identities appear.

Draft and Download Your Working Record

Draft your entry, then download a copy before leaving. Send any project decision through the communication process agreed with your supplier.

Frequently Asked Questions

Use it when one vehicle will show the identities of two businesses and the relationship needs a traceable approval chain. Identify the primary operator, secondary business, actual proposed use and responsible sources before asking the designer to arrange the marks.

No. It organizes information supplied through the businesses’ own process. Retain the actual decision sources and route agreement or authority questions to the responsible parties. Completing a form does not create rights to another business’s identity.

Use exact wording supplied and confirmed by the responsible business owners. Keep unsettled wording pending. A logo attachment alone does not explain whether the relationship is a partnership, supply arrangement or another role suitable for a public claim.

Obtain the current asset and usage instructions from its responsible source. Record the file reference, version and contact. A copied web image should not silently replace the supplied artwork or become assumed evidence of permission for the requested use.

Record the actual scope of the response. A decision about one vehicle or event should not be extended to other units or uses without confirming the intended scope with its owner. Link the relevant units and proposed views to the decision source.

State which identity should lead and what customers should understand about the secondary identity. Review that direction against the supplied instructions. Ask for a coherent hierarchy instead of assuming that equal logo size is appropriate for every relationship.

Identify the precise conflict and ask the responsible contacts to resolve it. Keep the affected decision pending. The designer should receive coherent current instructions rather than be asked to decide which business’s rule or authority takes priority.

Identify what each reviewer can confirm, such as one identity’s treatment or the operator’s public message. Connect responses to the exact proof version. A decision about one element should not be described as approval of every statement or project question.

Describe the changed assets, wording or context and obtain the relevant review. Consolidate comments into one current instruction. Do not apply an old positive response to every later layout merely because the same company names are still present.

Check the current relationship and identity sources before reusing archived co-branded artwork. Keep update contacts and affected units findable. A replacement file can preserve an old design without establishing that its secondary identity remains current.

Capture both identities, asset sources, proposed areas, decision references and remaining actions. Keep underlying business evidence in the normal records process. The local download helps organize the inquiry without replacing a source document or creating authorization.

Provide actual photographs, units, controlled assets, exact public wording, hierarchy and relevant decision references. Identify open questions and a coordinating contact. Ask for a defined scope and any additional project assessment against that current brief.

Take the Next Step with a Clear Project Brief

Continue with the resource that matches your next decision:

Send the actual vehicle or surface photographs, quantities, approved brand files, requested coverage and timing constraints. Identify open questions so the project review can address your equipment and business needs.