There are endless categories in licensing. Some are appropriate for some brands. Some are not.
Pierre Cardin is a good example of how you can dilute a brand by licensing it poorly. According to an article I read, the brand owner doesn't care because he is making money.
Remember when Pierre Cardin was a high end men's fragrance? A logical place to go with licensing would have been high end men's wear and accessories, auto accessories and all things to do with the upscale male. And they did that successfully. But then you started seeing it everywhere, on cheap shirts and flip flops in drug stores, next to Suave in the grocery store. The brand became diluted and lost its cache. My husband just brought back two kids backpacks from China with the Pierre Cardin label. They just happened to be cool backpacks, he didn't buy them because of their label. But how did they get from high men's items to kids backpacks in an airport?
Licensing to every and any category. Maybe the brand has enough staying power to not be completely destroyed by this stunt but in general, as brand management goes, its not a good idea.
Examples of a good brand extension for the Kleenex brand (for instance) outside its main category of paper products might be cold remedies or other "comfort" areas concerning personal care. But would you buy a copy machine with the Kleenex brand on it? That would be a poor choice for them to try to forge that category because the public perception of that brand isn't likely to go there.
Victoria Secret could probably generate some good royalties licensing Nascar's #8 but they (thankfully) wouldn't do that because Nascar and expensive lingerie are generally not thought of in the same sentence.
So if you are thinking of looking into licensing for your brand, consider which categories would be a good fit.
That's my two cents anyway.
