House of Brands vs. A Branded House

… I’m continuing ZAG week on the Brand Autopsy blog ...

Beginning on page 104 of ZAG, Marty Neumeier shares thoughts on strategically growing a brand. As we marketers know, most businesses feel the pressure to grow sales by launching brand extensions and brand adjacencies. And after a few brand extensions/adjacencies have launched, marketers are left with managing a portfolio of brands.

Marty has helped me to better understand the strategy of brand portfolio management by writing this …

There are two main models for organizing brand portfolios. The first is a ‘house of brands,’ meaning a company that markets a range of separate brand names (Procter & Gamble). The second model is a ‘branded house,’ meaning that the company itself is the brand, and its products or services are subsets of the main brand (Hewlett-Packard).

The advantage of a house of brands is that each brand is free to fight its battles on its own terms, unfettered by the meaning of the parent brand.

The advantage of a branded house is that all the products and services can share the same budget, customer, and market position.”

---

I sure hope these snippets from ZAG are convincing you to buy the book. It’s a way worthy read for any marketer.

Comments

[Mark Waltz]

Understanding this difference has helped us so much in our multi-faceted organization. When guests experience one organization there is clarity and therefore, the best opportunity for relationship. And, it is about relationships, right?

[Laurie Englert]

Good information and I will buy the book. Sometimes it's difficult to explain to clients different brand strategies. I like how he categorizes with the house concept. Simple concept to grasp.