Brand architecture

There are essentially three models. One brand over everything, with descriptive product names. A parent brand with sub brands that always stand beside it. Or separate brands side by side, where the customer need not know they are related. A fourth option does not exist, only degrees of these three. Brand architecture becomes a real question the moment a salesperson has to open by explaining how your two ranges connect.

A furniture maker launches a second range for hotels and wants a name and logo of its own. Do the maths. A trademark application in Slovakia covering three classes costs 170 euros, each further class 50 euros. That is the cheap part. Costlier is a separate identity, a separate website and separate content every month. The dearest item is attention: a second brand asks for half the budget and half the head of the one marketer you employ.

The decision fits into one evening. Write down who buys each range, where you reach them, and whether they would be embarrassed by each other. Then count how much content you can genuinely produce per month. If the number does not stretch to two brands, you have your answer. From you we need price lists, a product inventory and an honest sentence about who will actually run the brands.

Honestly, for a company turning over a few million euros the right answer is nearly always one brand with descriptive product names. Agencies sell that reluctantly, because it is cheap. We see the opposite just as often: three brands, because three ranges appeared over time and each got a logo from a different supplier. The customer has never heard of two of them, because there was never a budget. That is not brand architecture, that is a collection.

We ask one question and the answer tells us most of it: would someone buy your second range who would be put off by the first? If yes, a separate brand earns its keep. If no, save the money. One more rule you can borrow today: do not launch a new brand until you have twelve months of budget set aside for it.