Levels for analysing a brand architecture strategy
Luckily, you are just seconds away from some very smart brand marketing solutions. Click here!
Key Points
Brand architecture – the house that quantum built…………….
Brand architectures are becoming ever more complex to reflect both the growing size of the mega-corporations (and thus portfolio ownership) and the increasingly networked world in which they live.
Consequently, brand architectures need to be analysed both relationally and at many different levels. We have identified 10 different levels of analysis so far, and then we fell asleep.
Recognising that all these levels inter-relate, there are many ways you can design a brand architecture appropriate to your business model.
In more detail…..
Level 1: the Solitaire gambit……….
Is it possible in this world that a brand can stand absolutely unassociated or unassociable with any other brand? It is not clustered in any way with any other brand, and it is not evoked in the context of any other brand.
We cannot think of any, and are not sure that it is even conceivably possible.
Close to this, though, is the “branded house”, where every product or service of a company is branded the same. Examples, we think, would include Nike, Samsung, Daewoo and Ericsson, but there is nearly always an “Ah, but, did you know……….?”
Level 2: Are they distinct?
If you have two brands, are they distinct, confused (deliberately or otherwise), or in-between the two.
Distinct brands would be, say Dell Computers and Poison perfume.
Confused takes you into the realm of passing off and counterfeit relationships.
But if brands are translated into different scripts – Cyrillic, Farsi, Hebrew, Chinese/Japanese - are these the same brands or not?
Level 3: Are they related?
The classic unrelated set is the “house of brands”, where each brand is promoted in isolation from the others under the same ownership. There is no need to know, for instance, that Lipton tea and Domestos bleach belong to the same company.
Then you have the clearly related brands, in their many forms.
But what about in-between? As an example, is Easynet related to easyGroup? When you first see it, you reserve judgment. It might be; it might not be. You park the question in your query hanger.
Level 4: If related, are they related hierarchically or associatively?
The classic hierarchical relationship is Microsoft Office. Microsoft is the “parent”; Office is the “child”.
An associative relationship is where brands are derived from other brands, or have a common stem or identity, such as McDonalds, McFluff, Big Mac, McNuggets etc..
In between, you have the “brand string” (we think that we have invented this term). Examples of this are Apple/MacIntosh/Apple Mac/i-Mac/I-Pod and 3M/Scotch/Scotch-Brite/Highland.
Level 5: Is it a singular or cluster relationship?
Brands can be related one-to-one (e.g. IBM Thinkpad), or one-to-many (Intel Pentium, Intel Celeston), or many-to-many (the Nestle brand has several different logos that are also related to Nescafe/Nestea/Nesquick etc.).
Level 6: Is there common ownership?
If you have GE Avis, you know that GE is the parent brand, and that the General Electric Corporation owns Avis Car Rental.
On the other side, you have co-branding which is a common, albeit risky, phenomenon. Probably the most common form of co-branding is in the manufacturer/ distributor relationship. Usually co-branding happens when there is a satisfying mutually reinforcing blend of the brand genes, e.g. Philips and Douwe Egberts. However, there is also the emergence of the “A” list co-branding strategy, where famous brands just love to hang around together celebrating their iconic status.
Again, it is the in-between ground that is the most interesting. At one level, this can describe the territory of franchising, licensing and associations, such as with many high street stores (KFC, Spa stores, McDonalds etc.) or XYZ company “a member of the ABC buying group”. These companies are not co-owned, but there is a long-lasting structural relationship. At another level you have joint ventures, such as the Smart car (Daimler-Chrysler/Swatch), which are temporary contractual relationships. Or then, recent merger & acquisitions where the brands were not originally related or co-owned, but they are now – sometimes this relationship is resolved quickly, but often it drags on unresolved for years.
Level 7: What is the geographical scope?
Some brands are simply national brands, especially retailers, such ASDA in the UK, E. Leclerc in France. Some are global, such as Disney and Coca-Cola, sold in almost every country in the world.
Then there are the international brands, available in selected countries. An interesting version of this is Nestle’s policy of using the Findus brand for frozen food in Western Europe, but the Maggi brand for the same products in Eastern Europe.
Level 8: Standardised or modified?
Even if the same brand is available globally or internationally, is it the same brand?
The Disney brand is intended to be identical throughout the world. It is thus a standardised brand
On the other hand, McDonalds is significantly different in different countries in terms of the food it sells. The Coca-Cola product also differs by country, as indeed did its livery (the Coca-Cola “red” in the Netherlands used to be a distinctive shade darker than elsewhere). Siemens uses different colour coding on its websites in different countries. These are modified brands.
Then you have the brands that are identical in any country they are present in, and they will choose rather not to launch the brand in a country if there is no fit.
Or you have the “cluster” brands that are standardised in certain countries, but not others. Sony in the US is an entertainment brand, in the UK it is a lifestyle brand, and in most of continental Europe it is a gadget brand. If you believe in Hofstede’s classification of countries by culture, you could have brands clustered US/UK, the Far East, Scandinavia/Netherlands, France, Germany, Northern Italy/Spain, Southern Italy/Greece/Balkans, and so on. We do not know whether anyone has ever done this.
Level 9: Is there intended to be a perceived relationship?
Many brands are deliberately associated (as in the “hybrid” strategy where a parent brand is associated with a product, service or family brand – the first providing authority and stature, the latter specificity to a context). The Sony Walkman would be an example.
Many brands are deliberately kept separate, although they are in fact related, e.g. Dixons and Matsui, Sony and Aiwa.
In between you have the “shadow endorsers” where everyone knows that there is a relationship, but you rarely catch the owners saying so – Lexus/Toyota, Ford/Mazda, and Lufthansa/Germanwings.
Level 10: Is that relationship positive or negative?
Finally, you have to ask whether the relationship is positive, negative or neutral, and indeed in which direction this energy flows.
Traditionally, the parent brand uses its brand equity to endorse the new brand until it can stand in its own right. So BA chose to endorse Go, so as to persuade people that Go’s planes would stay in the air. Conversely, the new brand, once established, reinvigorates the more established brand. Other examples would be 3M and Post-it Notes, Prudential and egg, Midland and First Direct.
However, what about when the relationship is negative? This happens in the case of “second branding”, where the new brand is intended to be a cheaper, stripped down copy of the original brand, e.g. Lufthansa and Germanwings, KLM and Buzz, Sony and Aiwa. Generally speaking, the fear is that people realise what is going on, the cheaper brand will cannibalise the premium brand – which may or may not matter, depending on the business model that underpins each brand. Dow Corning, for instance, has a second brand, and it is happy for people to recognise the linkage because both business models are equally profitable.
Then you have the brand that causes significant damage to the original brand. The Coca-Cola Corporation, the owner of the most valuable brands in the world, have done this at least twice. First with New Coke, which rapidly caused a full-scale retreat to Classic Coke. Now with Dasani, exposed as being simply filtered tap water, and maybe with being unhealthy into the bargain.
Or you have the parent brand that undermines its dependent brands, such as Tyco.
Some associations are neutral. You know that Jaguar is from the same stable as Volvo and Aston Martin, but do you care, and is there any transference of associations or emotions?
Two final questions……………..
Having highlighted 30 possible brand architecture strategies. Could there be others?
Well there are not just 30, as many can be used in combination (and we regret we decline to count all the possible combinations), but, no, there will certainly be ones we have missed, and others yet to be developed.
And does any company employ every single one of them? Some companies come perilously close.
Old-established, global conglomerates are usually an accumulation of their history. They started out with one brand when they were small. They added other brands as they invented new product families. They then started associating some of these families deliberately or conveniently using brand stems, derivatives and strings. They bought some other companies and acquired their brands, often competing in the same space (which is why they were bought in the first place). Bowing to price pressure, they set up some second brands. Now all of their brands are global, some are standardised; others are modified. They have licensing deals with other companies, franchises, joint ventures and belong to associations. And, of course, some of their brands are on the “A” list.
How can you knock their brand architecture strategy when these are usually among the most successful companies in the world?
Luckily, you are just seconds away from some very smart brand marketing solutions. Click here!
© 2004, Mud Valley ™ brand marketing community.
For further information, please contact enquiries@mudvalley.co.uk
Related answers
Get intimate with Mud Valley tools training!
