Branded: In this model, at the opposite end of the scale from the monolithic strategy, a standalone separate brand is established with no reference to the master brand or sub- brand. GravityStack is a good example. Owned by Reed Smith, it makes no mention of the parent company. Since the brand is free of associations, the leadership team has the flex to position GravityStack (with its own name and visual identity) as it sees fit. Commonly, firms employ a mixture of models and approaches, and only rarely adopt a single solution when structuring corporate and product brands. Figure 1 summarises several issues to consider when deciding on the best route to follow. Don’t stop at the corporate brand As a strategy, brand architecture doesn’t (or shouldn’t) stop at the corporate level. It can help to bring structure for organising and naming client-facing tech solutions – products, services and tools. When it comes to naming, a brand architecture strategy enables firms to make sensible and rational decisions by cutting through subjective suggestions and ill-thought-out, throwaway ideas for names. It also offers a framework for the discussion and analysis of naming scenarios. What’s more, it gives a structure for acquired products, or those produced in collaboration. Another benefit that brand architecture offers is the opportunity to establish naming conventions. Types of names can include descriptive and abstract names, or those that use the firm’s initials or acronyms. It may be tempting (and even legitimate), for example, to adopt an abstract approach (creating a cool, fun, disrupter-sounding name seems like a sure way to express techno credentials). But this approach might not be the optimum route for longer-term success, for all products. Brand architecture is useful for organising products. It’s inevitable that as tech develops, we’ll see the emergence of an increasing amount of products and product variants. Upfront discussions about how best to group products will only serve to enrich and shape solutions and market understanding. The example of Allen & Overy shows what occurs when this doesn’t happen, and products and services are created in isolation. A few years ago, the firm found itself with a portfolio of tech and resourcing solutions, developed over 10 years, which lacked organisation. This made it difficult for its partners and clients to buy and sell; and so, in the absence of a brand architecture strategy, the firm developed a retrospective solution. Firstly, it packaged everything under an overarching proposition (Advanced Delivery), grouping all products into categories (Solutions, Technology or Resources). It then endorsed some solutions separately (Fuse and Peerpoint, by Allen & Overy). Because its journey did not start from a defined point, and there was no clear brand architecture, the firm risked losing sight of its destination. Making the right decision As tech and artificial intelligence solutions continue to challenge the status quo, the legal market is changing at pace. Firms now face market fragmentation, new breeds of competitors, and an ever-changing business environment.
Inevitably, more technology will spawn more products. From managing one brand, firms will need to make the transition to managing many. To cope with these pressures and complexities, firms will need to find ways to manage and structure their portfolios of product brands more strategically and efficiently. A coherent brand structure can lead to impact, clarity, synergy and leverage. Having such a structure allows a firm to avoid market weakness, confusion, disagreement, waste and missed opportunities. Remember, this is a journey. It is never too late to step back, review and rationalise your collection of brands, and to develop a blueprint for the best way forward.
The big consumer brands do it all the time.
Equally, if you are just starting out on the journey and selling one tech product or service – and if you need to decide whether to call this the same as your firm or something different – you will need to think about brand architecture. No matter where in the journey you’ve reached, the development of a brand architecture strategy can help in developing clarity, understanding alignment with the market, and making sales.
Figure 1: Selecting your brand structure
Towards a monolithic or sub-brand strategy
Does the masterbrand contribute to the offering by adding: • Positive associations to enhance the value proposition? • Credibility and visibility? • Communication efficiencies (to provide cost savings)?
Will association with the new offering strengthen the masterbrand?
Towards an endorsed or branded strategy
Is there a compelling need for a separate brand because it will: • Create new associations (and avoid replicating existing ones)? • Represent a new, different offering? • Capture new customers (or retain existing ones in the case of acquisitions)?
Will the business be able to support a new brand name?
21
©Soukias Jones Design 2020 soukiasjones.co.uk @soukiasjones
Made with FlippingBook Ebook Creator