Avoid brand new mistakes

Is your organization rebranding? Make sure you address all those business units under your umbrella carefully. We love this discussion of Google vs. Microsoft brand architecture. The point here is that consumers can only remember a few brands in each product category, so perhaps it's best to keep the brand architecture simple. Sub-brands can work, but they require focus and restraint.

First, consider Microsoft's approach to brand architecture.


We think Microsoft tends to obfuscate their branding, with numerous arcane names-within-names that each compete for customers' finite attention span. On the little brand reception ladder in each of our heads, we only have so much room for names in one product category. Give us too many names, we'll lose interest.

Now, look at Google's branding:

Google uses a major brand name, followed by subsets each with a clear descriptor of the consumer need. If you go to Google and want news, you can find it easily at Google News. No muss, no fuss. Note, however, that Gmail pops out as a separate entity. Google recognizes that email is a huge component of computer users' needs, and so elevated this "brand flag" to its own name.

Brand simplicity isn't always the right solution, but brand balance is. For example, a hospital's orthopedics practice meets a huge subset of specialized needs -- bad backs, sports medicine -- and so might be elevated to a sub-brand under the hospital umbrella. This would make sense, because people seeking specialists for spine or joint problems want to go to a group that focuses only on that, and their needs are very removed from the perception of a general hospital. But if a hospital tries to create a sub-brand name for every service line, consumers are just gonna get confused.

Pick and choose your brand flags carefully, because the media plans that execute against each name will need focus -- and consumers will only see the few brand flags that make sense.