Our guiding principles
The name is the most static element of a brand as regular change would lead to confusion in the market and erode brand equity.
However, sometimes there is a need to evolve. A name change might
be needed to support a change in positioning or it might be a necessity following a merger or acquisition. Often this change will take the form of a revised brand architecture where the relationship between different brands in the family will be adapted and there are three main strategies in this respect.
Under a Master Branding strategy one corporate brand is used often with service-line brands underneath. For example, conglomerate GE brands all of their services under the GE label and appends simple service descriptors to differentiate between their offering to different markets, e.g. GE Healthcare, GE Power & Energy, GE Transportation.
An alternative is a House of Brands strategy. Here the corporate brand is positioned as a holding company for many separate brands which have no explicit link with each other or the parent brand. For example, marketing giant WPP has hundreds of separate brands sitting in the group, but each brand operates autonomously, e.g. Ogilvy, Burson Marsteller, Landor.
Finally, an Endorsed Brand approach sits in-between a Master Branding and House of Brands strategy. Here a ‘divisional’ brand takes centre stage but the power of the parent brand is used to add credibility and/or convey particular associations, e.g. scale, trustworthiness. For example, United Technologies uses this approach with their brands (Chubb, Kidde, Otis and others) by adding the group name as a suffix, e.g. Chubb, a United Technologies company.
Most companies will adopt one of these strategies, but some may use a mixed or hybrid approach, e.g. using a sub-brand to endorse a parent brand rather than vice-versa.
So how do you choose which strategy is best for you? Well, every situation is unique and the best strategy will depend on your goals. However, there are three broad guidelines which often apply across situations.
First, the brand architecture should reflect the level of market recognition of and sentiment towards each brand. If one member of the brand family has a particularly high profile and/or is especially well-loved then it’s wise to ensure that the brand architecture benefits from this strength.
Second, the brand architecture should make sense to the target market. It needs to:
• Be organised in a way which is easy to navigate,
• Ensure that each brand adds value and plays a clear, distinct role
• Ensure that brands support each other, e.g. no contradictory associations
And it should also make sense to your organisation:
• Enables different market segments to be targeted
• Future proof – future acquisitions can be easily integrated
• Appropriate for the risk of brand ‘contamination’
• In line with commercial strategy, e.g. plans to spin off brands
Third, and most importantly, the brand architecture should recognise that a brand is more than a name and logo. Rather, it’s what these signals mean to an individual – the feelings and beliefs they bring to mind when encountered, and the impact this has on behaviour. As such, the ‘best’ brand architecture is the one which is most likely to trigger positive feelings and beliefs, and lead to the desired behavioural outcome (usually a buying preference).