What are the common pitfalls to avoid when implementing a brand architecture change?

One of the most important things is determining if you are a house of brands or a branded house. While some brands can have elements of both, you must understand which approach best suits your product set, the product benefits, your consumer’s behavior, distribution model, current brand equity and marketing approaches. Of course, there is so much more, but defining the “why” behind this decision is key.

Rolling out the new brand architecture to external audiences before you share with your internal audiences (aka employees) is the biggest mistake I have seen companies make. The quickest way to show your employees they are an afterthought is to let them read about the news in a press release online. Hold a company meeting. Explain the why. How they fit into this new structure. How they can continue to be brand ambassadors for the company. Have talking points and an FAQs document ready for everyone. It will save you a lot of time in the long run. And remember, wondering "who do I work for now?" from an employee is not a silly question, EVER.

One thing you can do is ask your people: 'when talking to someone, who do you say you are working for?' It will tell you a lot about how they feel about your brand and where they feel they belong, particularly in a large business. You can ask your customers a similar question. The answers will give you important clues as to what brand architecture you should employ. (Or if you have already decided, the size of your task if it involves a change in thinking on behalf of your customers and people.)

Striking the right balance here can be challenging. Each sub-brand can, and should, have its distinct role and value prop. But what's often overlooked is making sure the sub-brands reinforce the main brand in an organic and authentic way. Just as a confusing, vague architecture can dilute brand value, deliberate sub-brand alignment strengthens peer brands as well as the main brand they ladder up to.

The recent proliferation of “hybrid” brand architectures (those that combine elements of a House of Brands with elements of a Branded House) has been both a blessing and a curse. Done right, it strengthens the umbrella brand while allowing the company to flex and stretch where needed, for example to address a very different customer or seize a business opportunity that is less clearly connected to the core brand promise. Done poorly, it’s a non-decision decision that increases complexity while reducing or eliminating the clarity and efficiency that a properly focused brand architecture model can provide. Choose wisely, communicate clearly, and execute consistently!

While all the above are true, one of the most commonly neglected areas is sell-through and repetition. Some of the most beautiful brand architecture created is left on the table simply due to non-company-wide understanding and adherence. Made a plan to ensure the new architecture is understood at all levels, the WHY behind it. And continue to repeat. Often, a best practice is to have a single SME to be both an advocate and the brand police.

Missing out on the people is the biggest pitfall. Companies change their branding without pretesting if that change could have an impact internal and/or externally. A brand is a human being, and to some people change is not favorable, so know the what people think first, have experts decide, talk about RR restructuring resources and then discuss with the stakeholders the change. A website, a name, and a logo is not the brand; it is the people who make it up!