A virtual framework that locates, connects and holds a family of brands in the optimal relationship for successIt is a decision-making tool to help facilitate efficient and appropriate branding decisionsIt is clarifies, leverages, builds and protects the strength of the company’s corporate and product/service brands
3
Brand architecture?
Isn’t a single brand the best option?
4
A single ‘monolithic’ brand structure can offer compelling benefits:
‣ Big picture view
Provides a clear reference and accelerates a consistent brand culture
‣ Economies of scale
A focused effort often has more impact and thus economies of scale
‣ Clear parentage
Simpler to recognise, universal credibility, common values
5
Brand
Investors
Employees
Customer A
Customer B
Partners
Media
Influencers
Suppliers
Customer C
But how well is the single brand able to successfully connect with all audiences?
Brand architecture conventions
6
Product Brand corporate brand
Corporate Brand Product Brand
Product Brand
Corporate Brandproduct descriptor
Branded house
Shared house
House of endorsed brands
House of brands
monolithic
autonomous
Brand architecture conventions
Considerations?
14
‣ What are the relative strengths of the house versus the product brands?
‣ How much would be compromised by creating a more coherent group brand presence versus the associated benefits?
‣ How different are the audiences for the various products that currently take a different approach to naming/positioning and to what extent does this merit a different approach to branding?
‣ How different are the future business development strategies for the various offerings. To what extent will this affect the level of autonomy required?
‣ How much variation is there by geographical region? Does this necessitate a different approach to the brand?
‣ How relevant and valuable is the ‘halo’ effect that will be generated by clear endorsement across the branded products and services?
Considerations?
15
‣ Are there any incompatibility dissonances that exist between the house brand and the product/service brands? (e.g. Danone and Kronenburg)
‣ Is the product/service offering inhibited in some way by the house brand? (e.g. Bentley and VW)
‣ Do we want to extend the product/service brand into a territory/market that is potentially incompatible with the house brand or in which the house brand might become a negative? (e.g. Head & Shoulders with P&G in Iran)
‣ Will the house brand association inhibit the focused ‘ownership’ of a particular category? (e.g. Go airlines within the BA house)
‣ Is there a distribution conflict whereby the same brand might look incongruous coming from different directions - software from one supplier, consultancy from another? (e.g. Morgan Stanley credit card)
Considerations?
16
‣ While monolithic brands (branded house) tend to be stronger, better focused and more cost-effective to develop than autonomous brands (house of brands), they demand a high level of consistency to retain their integrity.
‣ For this reason, a monolithic brand architecture tends to be be less flexible in embracing different product/service propositions and this needs to be taken into account where such flexibility is likely to be a factor in the future.
Example: BMW (monolithic across all BMW-branded products/services) with brand extensions Mini and Rolls-Royce
BMW global homepage (http://www.bmw.com)
BMW group brands (http://www.bmweducation.co.uk/coFacts/view.asp?docID=84&topicID=1)
18
Brand types
Mind
Function Benefit Performance Personality Lifestyle
Heart
‣ Brands that tend towards lifestyle rather than function are generally more flexible in embracing different product/service propositions: