Visualizing Brand Architecture
Oct|5|2009 Laura Savard and Mark Gallagher
Brand architecture is yet another area within the discipline of branding that becomes more effective as strategy and aesthetic are practiced as one. Brand architecture provides a blueprint for growing and managing a company’s brand portfolio by defining relationships between sibling brands. However, those relationships are often lost within the context of a spreadsheet, and the result is inadvertent competition and market cannibalization. This can be avoided by ensuring that your brand architecture is depicted though visual maps that define each brand’s areas of focus and overall market space.
Few brand experts would argue with the fact that brands are built through focus and sacrifice. After all, the basic concept of branding is built on differentiation. Yet historically, brand managers are led astray as either competitors or consumers change focus. This often leads brand managers to dilute brand value as they chase the market. This is where visual systems can help.
By moving from spreadsheets to brand maps, companies can present the relationships between sibling brands—clearly outlining what each brand will provide and to whom. This enables each brand within the family to understand and explain the relationships between a parent company; its products and brands as well as future market opportunities. Marketing managers and strategic partners better understand their role and areas for potential growth.
The Brand Architecture Map provided here is an example of a visual depiction of brand relationships within a given hierarchy. While this system illustrates the quality of each offering, ranging from ultra value to ultra premium, it is non-linear which makes allowances for innovation and market shift. This encourages friendly competition between sibling brands while maintaining the established brand hierarchy, avoiding the cannibalistic behavior that became so prevalent in the American automotive industry.
This system defines the unique focus and relevance of each brand, while mitigating the risks associated with several brands competing within the same market. Without such a visual guide to define each brand’s roll, market creep is inevitable and each brand within the portfolio would become subject to commoditization.
Communication is the key to management. By providing your team the tools to visualize the process, you keep things clear, simple and effective. The result is that competing brands within the same organization can each support the organization’s larger goals and objectives.
Brand Sonification
Change is Inevitable
A Product is NOT a Brand
Branding & Social Media
Coca-Cola and Santa Claus
The “Value” of Brand
What is strategy?
Subtractive Thinking
RiP! A Remix Manifesto
This is a nice way of simplifying a very complex situation. The mapping drives home the message nicely. More brand builders could benefit from this exercise and from revisiting it frequently!
Two thoughts come to mind:
1. The perception of the customer is all that matters. If you are a high quality/high price ultra-premium product, but the perception is that you are lacking quality… well, then you lack quality… no matter what the reality might be. That's a tough spot to be in.
2. Opportunity exists in more places than just the high quality/low price quadrant. Opportunity exists wherever needs are not adequately being met by existing options. There could be situations where the high quality/low price opportunity is already being met, and the best opportunity for a new brand exists elsewhere.
A timely reminder for marketing strategists to 'get visual'. There is life beyond the ubiquitous spreadsheet
Love the idea of plotting a "branded house or house of brands" sibling brands on a visual map. I definitely think it's an important step many brand managers don't do.
Many 'houses' have to decide what offerings its brands will have in common & therefore will be points of competition. (they'll often perform ethnographic studies determining which types of people will be attracted to 2 competing brands)
It would be ideal if your map allowed brands to visually distinguish what level of overlap 2 sibling brands have. I think your map could illustrate that with one minor alteration: http://twitpic.com/kemyw/full
Jordan,
Agreed! We didn't mean to imply that there would never be overlap between brands, nor that price and quality are the only two factors to consider when mapping that space. As you know, few brand portfolios could be broken down this simply. Most deal with additional vectors such as ethnographics, psychographics, long term vs. temporary solutions, and so on.
As you pointed out, overlap exists in the architecture of most brand portfolios. In this case, we intentionally kept this brand map very basic. When competition between sibling brands does exist, which it usually does, it is imperative to clearly delineate market space. However, there are often times when mutual exclusivity can provide a competitive advantage for both brands within the same space. Think horsepower vs fuel economy.
We firmly believe that as each brand portfolio is mapped, a distinctive pattern emerges that dictates the framework for that structure. This makes for some complex structures that must be distilled into simple visuals that both carry and convey their reason for being. And this, of course, may be another conversation all together.
Big fan of your blog. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on ours.
Cheers,
Mark Gallagher
Brand Expressionist®
The idea of presenting complex ideas graphically is a good step forward; reminds me of Dan Roam's "Back of the Napkin" and visual thinking. It clearly accomplishes its goal of getting people to think about an issue.
At some point on this map there is a boundary at which a given brand cannot extend itself, as much as it would want to. The VW Phaeton and Merc A-Class are examples of brands moving out of the place consumers put them. If I were to spend $70k on a car, I wouldn't buy a bug on steroids. The approach Toyota took with Lexus is a much better way to cover this landscape; create an entirely new brand. Other examples of the risks involved: Wal-Mart trying to go upscale; Miller Beer spreading itself all over this map with something for everyone; and Google making money on anything other than search.
If "Mainstream" in this context equates to standard fare for a large audience then the price-quality trade-off is ephemeral and the mainstream sweet spot moves. The 'acceptable' mainstream car now has a radio, a backseat, windshields and intermittent wipers – all premium upgrades once upon a time. Since features and options are usually the most profitable aspect of a product line then the tendency will be to move straight up or to the upper right. In other cases when premium brands like Absolut get surpassed by new super premium products they become mainstream – through no positioning work of the brand manager.
In the end, a brand cannot carve out a fixed position on this map without periodically reinventing itself.
Anthony,
The brand architecture map illustrated here is actually an adaptation of one we created for a client. Significant changes were made to the map so as not to give away the client's propriety architecture. The actual map has three vectors, and the names were changed to generic descriptors such as "Mainstream." The original map was both diagnostic and prescriptive. The example here is not, but for the sake of argument let's use our imaginations and say it is.
If we overlay Toyota on the example, we can see that Scion would occupy "Ultra Value," Toyota would occupy "Mainstream" and Lexus would occupy "Premium." Over time, these brands have evolved. For example, Toyota was once an "Ultra Value" vehicle. As Scion becomes more "respected" it will move toward the "Value" position, and so on and so on…
No matter how you map a company’s brand portfolio relationships between sibling brands must be clearly defined and charted within a simple visual map. As you pointed out the map must allow room for each brand to grown and evolve with the market.
Thanks for contributing.
Cheers,
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
Mark (& Laura?): metaphors and visuals work where facts seem to fail. I guess we're visual people somewhere in our lizard brains. This is a smart way to capture the opportunities that you (and your consumers) may not see just yet.
I live in the Santa Cruz area. Like most of the surface of the earth, there's a Starbucks on every corner. We also have Coffee Cat, a very non-Starbucks coffee shop. The latte is a ten thousand calorie coffee looking milkshake you can eat with a fork. Ultra ultra premium. It couldn't have existed if Starbucks didn't exist.
This story throws a caution out to anyone doing a visual map: don't fall in love with the boundaries of your map, because someone else can re-draw it and beat you at your own game. There's a need to challenge your own assumptions vigorously when you make it visual, because we all tend to fall in love with our own picture. Once it's on paper, you don't often want to change it. Be careful, lest someone else do it for you.
Good and thoughtful post! Thanks –
Stephen Denny
@Note_to_ CMO
Impressive. I Agree with Stephen, many clients seem to be creatures of visual thinking. I appreciate the map you're suggesting, and also agree with Jordan's suggestion… seems to take it to the next level.
Love your insights. Keep them coming. If it's alright; I'm going to reference your post (and Jordan's comment/ altered map) in an upcoming agency town hall. I think it's important to know how brand concept visualization maps can add clarity for everyone.
Thanks again for the great post.
Margaret,
You're more than welcome to reference the post. Thanks for sharing.
Cheers,
Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®
I like what you've done here, and I think Jordon has fine tuned the concept too. I also like the house comparison although, perhaps taking it too far, I think the foundations of the house can be equated to the internal brand process – therefore saying that the organisation is the brand and if the foundations are solid, the brand will last, no matter what is thrown at it.
I know I'm going slightly off topic here, but crucial to the brand proces today is the customer. Although Jordon eludes to the customer, it is wrong to lump all customers into one 'group' or segment.
That's because there are essentially 3 kinds of customers, potential customers, existing customers and lost customers. And all three of them have different requirements for value. And there are lots of sub segments within each of these segments.
Only when we develop a model that is able to offer each of these segments economic, experiential and emotional value, and on their terms, will we have a truly efficient model to build profitable brands.