Insights

In the literature under the term "brand architecture", you will find such strange things as tips for the brand-consistent structure of a trade fair exhibit or for other edifices constructed by brand companies. Used correctly, however, the term describes something completely different:

Brand architecture is the interplay among the various brands of a company or a group of related companies. It currently reigns over nearly all companies with more than one brand in their portfolio.

Whether Unilever, Procter & Gamble, BASF, W.L. GORE & Associates, Bosch, or VW – they all ask one essential question in their brand management: How do we stage our individual brands in such a way that they achieve the greatest possible market success, both by themselves and taken together? And the second question follows right behind: Based on what arguments can we substantively answer the 1st question?

Most companies are confronted with brand architecture questions when ...

• new brands are added as part of an acquisition,
• the business and its associated brands are being questioned due to unfavorable numbers,
• cost saving projects are imposed on the company and the question is raised whether that many brands are really necessary for that little bit of profit,
• new products are launched and don't seem to fit with any of the available brands,
• different brand representatives within the company are embroiled in a battle over shrinking budgets and arguing about whose brand deserves more customer attention.

In this age of democratized and globalized corporate management, the question also arises how centrally brands should be managed and how globally strategies should apply to the individual brands and brand architectures.

More brands, more problems?

Anybody who manages more than one brand (and that includes most successful companies) – whether it is a brand manager, marketing manager, communicator or sales employee who represents these brands – will be confronted with such problems in their daily business. In our practical experience as corporate consultants, we find that these strategic aspects are reflected in very basic questions:

• Under what brand do I sell the new product?
• Do we keep the corporate brand of the company that was taken over, and what are the criteria for deciding this?
• With what brand do I attack my competition?
• How many brands do I need to reach my regional and global cost, sales, and profit targets?

To approach these simple questions in a substantive manner, we feel there are 13 rules for success. They describe the right path toward a growth-oriented brand architecture.

The 13 rules for success of a brand architecture:

1. "Credibility": You know what people think your brand can do and cannot do.
2. "Significance": You are aware of the significance of each brand for securing your competitive edge.
3. "Role": You have clarified what role each individual brand plays within the group of brands.
4. "Attention": You know that the perception of a brand depends on its significance and its role in the brand system.
5. "Interplay": You only present brands together if they credibly fit together.
6. "Leadership culture": The brand architecture reflects the leadership culture of your company.
7. "Joint success": You can see clearly what contribution each brand makes to the overall success of your company.
8. "Strengthening and weakening": You know how your brands support one another in your customers' decision processes, or how they interfere with one another.
9. "Corporate strategy": Your brand architecture serves your corporate strategy, not your sales tactics.
10. "Performance brands": Every single brand serves to impart specific peak performances.
11. "Content and husk ": The defined brand architecture is perceived not only for its design, but for its uniqueness.
12. "Trust": The trust-building merits of the past and future business options of the individual brands are aligned with one another.
13. "Competitive edge": As many brands as possible of the system address their respective market segment.