Brand architecture describes the role of the corporate brand in marketing products and services, as well as the relationships between all the brands, sub-brands, products, variants, and acquired businesses in the company’s portfolio. While brand architecture is often perceived as an area of interest only for large organisations, it plays a relevant role for businesses of all sizes. Even if you sell just one product or service, you will have had to consider whether it shares the same name as your company or have a different identity—this is a brand architecture decision.
The more complex a company’s portfolio, the more challenging it becomes to change the brand architecture. This is because brand architecture not only influences how a company communicates its offerings but it also impacts its organisational structure and resource allocation. When you look at it this way, brand architecture is not just a marketing decision; it is a strategic business decision that can affect everything from team dynamics to budget distribution.
Brand expert David Aaker has extensively explored the topic of brand architecture, and his nomenclature is widely used in the field. We will use his terminology as we explore the four main types of brand architecture, beginning with branded house and house of brands in this article, and continuing with sub-brands and endorsed brands in the next.
Branded house
What is a Branded House?
A company with a branded house architecture presents its products and/or services under a single masterbrand (also called a mother, parent or umbrella brand). The company’s offerings do not have separate identities; instead, they are based on and contribute to the strength of the masterbrand. This brand architecture type is also known by several other names, including monolithic or unified brand architecture, as well as the one brand, mono brand, or single brand strategy.
Sub-Types of a Branded House
Aaker distinguishes between two main types of branded houses: “Same Identity” and “Different Identity”. However, as the “Different Identity” category appears to overlap with sub-brands, a more practical distinction might be to categorise branded houses into two groups: those that use only the masterbrand to communicate their products and/or services without creating unique product names (“Masterbrand-Centric Approach”) and those that use distinct product names without giving them separate identities that would qualify as sub-brands (“Masterbrand with Product Names”).
Examples of a Branded House
An example of a company applying the Masterbrand-Centric Approach, where most products and services are marketed under a single masterbrand, is HSBC. While there are a few exceptions where products have their own names (such as HSBC Kinetic or HSBC Premier), most operate under recognisable category names (e.g., Student Account, Children’s Account, or Car Loan). Other companies primarily using this brand architecture sub-type include Wells Fargo, Gucci (its fashion business), Netflix, and Zoom.
When it comes to companies following the “Masterbrand with Product Names” approach, Apple is a prime example. Apple’s adoption of the branded house architecture model has been instrumental to its success, enabling the company to build one strong brand with a set of distinctive brand assets (read about the brand’s other key success factors here). All Apple products and services—examples include the MacBook, iPad, or Apple Pay—are intrinsically linked to the Apple umbrella brand. Each plays a secondary role to the masterbrand and is positioned as a product variant rather than a sub-brand. This means they do not have their own brand identities but instead use the Apple masterbrand identity. As a result, they do not compete with the main brand for attention. Other brands using this approach include Patagonia, IKEA, Guinness, and Cisco.
Pros and Cons of a Branded House
A branded house architecture is most useful when a company targets a similar audience with different products and aims to build consistent associations across its offerings.
We often note on this blog that a branded house should be the default brand architecture for most companies, as it is the most cost-effective option. Building awareness of one brand is much cheaper than managing multiple brands.
For this reason, many organisations are moving their offerings closer to the masterbrand. For example, Google has renamed and discontinued certain products to increase the prominence of the main brand (e.g., transitioning from Picasa to Google Photos, and renaming Google AdWords to Google Ads). Similarly, Microsoft rebranded its Office product as Microsoft 365. FedEx revisited its sub-brands strategy and transitioned to a branded house. Coca-Cola introduced the “One Brand” strategy, effectively turning sub-brands like Diet Coke and Coca-Cola Zero Sugar into variants of the main brand after years of marketing its drinks individually,.
However, a branded house should only be adopted when the reputation risk associated with different products is low, as one misstep could impact the entire company.
House of brands
What is a House of Brands?
A house of brands is almost the opposite of a branded house. It’s a brand architecture approach in which a company manages a portfolio of distinct brands, each with its own identity and marketing strategy. Unlike a branded house, where products are unified under a single masterbrand, a house of brands allows each product to stand alone, often with the consumer unaware of any connection to the parent company. This strategy allows companies to target diverse markets without diluting the individual brand’s message. This brand architecture type is also known as multi-brand or independent brands strategy.
Sub-Types of a House of Brands
According to Aaker’s Brand Relationship Spectrum, there are two subtypes within the house of brands architecture: “Shadow Endorser” and “Not Connected”. In the Shadow Endorser approach, the parent company’s association with the brand is established but not prominently displayed, allowing the brand to discreetly leverage the parent’s reputation, primarily among stakeholders such as investors. The Not Connected subtype maintains complete separation between the parent company and the brand, ensuring no visible link and allowing for full brand independence. However, this does not mean that the connection cannot be discovered by more curious customers.
Examples of a House of Brands
Two prominent examples often cited to illustrate the house of brands architecture are Procter & Gamble and Unilever. Procter & Gamble’s portfolio spans a wide range of products, from skincare and haircare to dishwashing and laundry detergents. Brands like Ariel, Always, Old Spice, Gillette, and Pantene all fall under the P&G umbrella. Unilever, the other frequently mentioned example, boasts an even more diverse portfolio, covering home and personal care as well as food and beverage brands. Lynx (Axe), Dove, Knorr, Lipton, Magnum, Marmite, and Ben & Jerry’s are just a few of the many names in the Unilever house of brands. Both companies exemplify the Shadow Endorser subtype of the house of brands architecture. Another example of this approach is The Coca-Cola Company, which subtly endorses some of its brands, such as Fanta, Sprite, and Dasani.
In contrast, the Volkswagen Group’s management of its non-Volkswagen brands is an example of the Not Connected subtype. Brands like Porsche, Audi, SEAT, and Škoda operate independently, with no visible endorsement from Volkswagen Group, and no mention of the Group even on their respective websites. Interestingly, The Coca-Cola Company employs this approach for some of its other brands, such as Innocent and Costa Coffee.
Pros and Cons of a House of Brands
A house of brands approach is recommended when an organisation targets different audiences within the same product category, such as offering three shampoo brands for three distinct target groups. This strategy allows the company to build unique propositions and associations for each product, regardless of whether it’s a value-for-money shampoo, a mid-range option addressing a specific issue like dandruff, or a premium salon-quality shampoo. A house of brands is also advantageous when there is a high reputation risk associated with certain products, as it prevents other brands in the portfolio from being affected. However, it’s important to note that this brand architecture requires a substantial marketing budget to effectively build awareness for each individual brand. Many companies struggle with this approach, marketing different products under different names with limited success due to inadequate marketing budgets.
In conclusion, changing a brand architecture is far more than a creative exercise focused on renaming. If you’re considering reorganising your brand architecture, we strongly recommend hiring professionals with a deep understanding of business strategy. This is a significant undertaking that requires a comprehensive understanding of your business, market, product portfolio, organisational structure (often aligned with key brands), and financial situation.
In part two of our brand architecture guide, we explore the two frameworks that sit between a branded house and a house of brands: sub-brands and endorsed brands.
If you need help with research or want to hire Magda for a brand project, email her at magda@brandstruck.co
To subscribe to our newsletter, simply email your address to brandstruck@brandstruck.co with the subject line ‘Newsletter’.
Magda Adamska is the founder of BrandStruck.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/magda-adamska-32379048/
BrandStruck is the only online database of brand strategy case studies.
BrandStruck’s mission is to empower brand builders worldwide with the best brand strategy practices and insights, showcased through 250+ case studies of the world’s most admired brands.