Since its formation in 1984, Matchtech Group (now re-branded as Gattaca following this research) has grown into a leading player in the recruitment market. This growth had been driven by creating, and latterly acquiring, several brands each of which was focussed on a particular market niche. Adopting this ‘house of brands’ strategy brought a number of benefits, especially the opportunity for each brand to build a stronger identity and position itself as a specialist.
However, Matchtech Group’s management team also saw the potential downside. Maintaining several distinct brands multiplied marketing costs, reduced group cohesion, may have caused confusion and failed to leverage the power of the parent brand. As such, alternative brand architectures were being evaluated. Perhaps it would be better to adopt a ‘master branding’ strategy where the parent brand is used with service descriptors? Or maybe it would be more effective to take an ‘endorsed’ approach where sub-brands remain but are augmented by the parent brand?
Whilst Matchtech Group’s management team could make a decision based on careful evaluation of the pros and cons of each option, they knew that the best route would only become clear once they understood the target market’s point-of-view:
- What does the target market want a recruitment brand to stand for?
- What meaning do they attach to each brand in the Matchtech Group family?
- How strong an attachment do they have to each brand?
- What relationship, if any, can they see between the brands?
This was Circle’s brief – to uncover brand perceptions and, on the basis of this, make recommendations about the optimum brand architecture.
View our services