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.

You're more than welcome to reference the post. Thanks for sharing.

Cheers,

Laura Savard
Brand Expressionist®

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.

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®

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

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.

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®

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

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.