Skip to main content

When the brand competes against itself

What happens when you have multiple identities within a single organization, each one competing for dominance? From a brand perspective, there are several brands housed within a larger brand, and each one wants to express itself as the main brand. This leads to competing messages that end up confusing the audience or canceling each other out.

Essentially, you can look at this as a brand architecture dilemma. Brand architecture refers to developing an optimal strategic relationship between multiple organization names. The goal of brand architecture is to create maximum “brand equity”—meaning the added value the brand name brings to the product or service beyond its functional value.

There are three types of brand architecture:

  • Monolithic: The corporate name, or “master brand,” is stamped on all products and services offered – like Starbucks.
  • Endorsed: The corporate name endorses sub-names – like Polo by Ralph Lauren.
  • Freestanding: The corporate name is a holding company and each product or service is individually branded – like Procter & Gamble and Tide.

The monolithic solution to the problem is to combine all the brand equity from all entities into a single brand, called by a single name. Organizationally, this means that the culture of each brand has to change to become one single entity. This is extremely difficult, maybe even impossible, if you have an entrenched subbrand.

The endorsed solution is to lend a master brand name to each sub-entity but let them retain their own organizational identities. The culture has to change less, because it is acknowledged that each entity takes a different approach, but there still has to be a common thread or theme tying all the sub-brands together into the main brand. If the sub-entities have a really strong identity, even this can be difficult.

The freestanding solution is to reserve the master brand name for a holding shell, and allow each subbrand to go forth and prosper on its own. This means that there are multiple missions with multiple cultures, and the subbrands may even compete against each other.

Keep in mind that there is no one right way to respond to a situation like this, but it is important to address the issue through one of the strategies above.

Popular posts from this blog

What is the difference between brand equity and brand parity?

Brand equity is a financial calculation. It is the difference between a commodity product or service and a branded one. For example if you sell a plain orange for $.50 but a Sunkist orange for $.75 and the Sunkist orange has brand equity you can calculate it at $.25 per orange.

Brand parity exists when two different brands have a relatively equal value. The reason we call it "parity" is that the basis of their value may be different. For example, one brand may be seen as higher in quality, while the other is perceived as fashionable.

All opinions my own. Originally posted to Quora. Public domain photo by hbieser via Pixabay.

What is the difference between "brand positioning," "brand mantra," and "brand tagline?"

Brand positioning statement: This is a 1–2 sentence description of what makes the brand different from its competitors (or different in its space), and compelling. Typically the positioning combines elements of the conceptual (e.g., “innovative design,” something that would be in your imagination) with the literal and physical (e.g., “the outside of the car is made of the thinnest, strongest metal on earth”). The audience for this statement is internal. It’s intended to get everybody on the same page before going out with any communication products.Brand mantra: This is a very short phrase that is used predominantly by people inside the organization, but also by those outside it, in order to understand the “essence” or the “soul” of the brand and to sell it to employees. An example would be Google’s “Don’t be evil.” You wouldn’t really see it in an ad, but you might see it mentioned or discussed in an article about the company intended to represent it to investors, influencers, etc.Br…

Nitro Cold Brew and the Oncoming Crash of Starbucks

A long time ago (January 7, 2008), the Wall Street Journal ran an article about McDonald's competing against Starbucks.
At the time the issue was that the former planned to pit its own deluxe coffees head to head with the latter.
At the time I wrote that while Starbucks could be confident in its brand-loyal consumers, the company, my personal favorite brand of all time,  "...needs to see this as a major warning signal. As I have said before, it is time to reinvent the brand — now.  "Starbucks should consider killing its own brand and resurrecting it as something even better — the ultimate, uncopyable 'third space' that is suited for the way we live now.  "There is no growth left for Starbucks as it stands anymore — it has saturated the market. It is time to do something daring, different, and better — astounding and delighting the millions (billions?) of dedicated Starbucks fans out there who are rooting for the brand to survive and succeed." Today as …