Search results

Corporations must routinely ask “how should we allocate existing financial and human resources among our brands to grow shareholder value?” Firms should focus on getting the most from existing brands through better organizing and managing brands and brand inter‐relationships within the existing portfolio. “Brand architecture” is the way a company organizes, manages, and markets their brands. It must align with and support business goals and strategies. Different business strategies require different brand architectures. The two most common types are: “Branded house” architecture – employs a single (master) brand to span a series of offerings that may operate with descriptive sub‐brand names and “House of brands” architecture – each brand is stand‐alone; the sum of performance of the independent brands is greater than they would be if under a master brand. Neither type is better than the other. Some companies use a mix of both. The key is to have a well‐defined brand architecture strategy. Steps to maximize brand architecture: take stock of your brand portfolio from the perspective of customers because their view is the foundation for your strategy; do “brand relationship mapping” to identify the relationships and opportunities between brands across your portfolio. Check for these criteria: the perceived or potential credibility of the brands in that space – the perceptual license; whether or not the company currently has or can develop competencies in that space – the organizational capabilities; and whether the size and current or potential growth of the market is significant enough to merit exploitation and investment – the market opportunity. Mine the opportunities where all three criteria are met (aka, the “sweet spot”). Or use these innovative strategies if all criteria do not intersect: “pooling” and “trading,” branded partnerships’, strategic brand consolidation, brand acquisition, new brand creation. Continuously emphasize the portfolio‐wide thinking and business‐wide implications of brand‐oriented decisions. Create a brand council. When managed strategically and used as a structure to anticipate future business and brand needs, concerns, and issues, brand architecture can be the critical link to business strategy and the means to optimize growth and brand value.

Brand portfolio management is not just a marketing issue, in which a sub‐optimal portfolio dilutes marketing messages and confuses customers. It also directly affects corporate profitability. Ill‐defined and overlapping brands in a portfolio lead to erosion in price premiums, weaker manufacturing economies, and sub‐scale distribution. In a slower economy, the problems of an under performing portfolio are even more acute: While adding brands is easy, it becomes difficult to harvest the value in a brand or to divest it. Effective brand portfolio management starts by creating a fact base about the equity in each brand and the brand’s economic contribution. The application of analytical tools can inform decisions about individual and collective brand strategies from targeting and positioning to investments, partnerships, and extension opportunities. Linking the intangibles of brands to hard financial metrics allows companies to exploit the full potential of their brands and thereby gain a competitive advantage.

In the literature, the question of how the strategies of brand portfolios affect performance remains open and subject to contradictory developments. This paper aims to highlight the various steps involved in the analysis of international brand portfolios as well as issues specific to each of these phases.

This article relies on the results of a longitudinal case study conducted in collaboration with the marketing direction of Procter & Gamble's European Business Unit “Laundry and Fabric Care” from 2004 to 2009.

The authors present the strategic and operational movements that led to the reduction of the P&G brand portfolio in the laundry category. The authors then compare them with the current results of the company in this market to assess the performance of this strategy of rationalization.

While the best way forward to construct international brand portfolios has not yet been specifically defined and many questions remain, this article provides an illustration of a methodology tested by an international company.

Brand architecture and brand portfolios have been regarded as absolute entities to be analysed from the company’s perspective. The purpose of this study is to question such a uniform view by adding a perceptional dimension to the two concepts.

Semi-structured interviews with 58 marketing professionals and customers were used to explore ten propositions and map associations in the perceived brand portfolios, based on the brand concept map methodology.

The study reveals systematic differences between the collective view of company representatives, who name fewer brands associated through more sophisticated and highly connected brand systems and customers who include more partners and competitor brands in the portfolio, who also name more brands and connections in total.

Implications of the results are analysed and future research is suggested to determine the generalizability of the findings and the economic implications of discrepant internal and external views of a brand architecture and brand portfolio.

Academics should relate to this dualism by compensating for the effects of the associative predisposition of employees versus customers when interpreting results of studies related to brand portfolios and brand architecture. Marketing practitioners must actively acknowledge and manage the role of partners and competitors as part of the company’s external brand portfolio.

This study is the first to problematize the unilateral interpretation of brand portfolios and brand architecture by introducing a dual view of these concepts based on internal (employees) and external (consumers) perceptions.

The paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of brand portfolio management by examining the brand portfolio strategies of four leading cosmetics companies. The research focuses on two questions: what reasons lead companies to develop, or not, a brand portfolio strategy, and how brand portfolio management can create a higher and stronger level of competitive advantage that is harder to grasp and imitate.

The paper utilises an exploratory approach by means of case studies. Data were collected from the following companies: L'Oréal, Clarins, Estée Lauder and Wella. The research involved in‐depth interviews with 33 company directors.

The research results show that an aggregation of brands is not in and of itself a brand portfolio. The juxtaposition of brands is one of the elements, but not the sole element, necessary for the development of a brand portfolio, which is a combination of a brand ensemble and key factors born out of organisational savoir‐faire.

The results validate the existence of a link between brand portfolios and competitive advantage, a link based on the existence of four key factors identified in the research.

A model is proposed to assist managers in better understanding and controlling brand regrouping, because the research illustrates the benefits for a company that executes well‐coordinated brand management.

This research fits into the complex context of strategic/marketing relationships and broadens the field of brand analysis, notably its strategic dimension. The contribution of this research is to show how a brand portfolio can create a stronger and higher level of competitive advantage, which is more difficult to copy.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the perceived content and structure of a brand portfolio, which may differ between individuals, by mapping the brand portfolio of two multi-national companies from the perspective of the marketing team. The discrepant views between individuals are analyzed and an aggregated brand portfolio is presented.

Semi-structured interviews with nine marketing professionals were used to map their individual perceived brand portfolios and structure, based on the Brand Concept Map methodology.

The study finds that there is a consistent difference in the individual perceived brand portfolio between marketing professionals. Brands that are not supported by all stakeholders may be suffering from an unclear positioning or undesired associations, and should receive management attention.

Explanations for the results are offered and future research is suggested to determine the generalizability of the findings and the economic implications of discrepant views on the company’s brand portfolio.

Marketing practitioners should consider the possible effects of conflicting views within their marketing teams on business performance. Identifying brands that are not supported by all stakeholders could be a way to discover under-performing brands with problematic brand positions in need of immediate attention.

This study is the first to compare and fully map the differences in perception of a company’s brand portfolio among internal stakeholders and the possible implications of this discrepancy.

This paper aims to propose a dynamic and holistic framework that combines the brand portfolio audit with the brand architecture redesign.

Depicting from an extensive review on the frameworks of brand audit and brand architecture, a dynamic approach to brand portfolio audit and brand architecture strategy was developed, and later applied and tested in three B2B and B2C companies.

The paper suggests an eight-step framework to guide practitioners when auditing a specific brand portfolio and designing a revised brand architecture strategy. Additionally, a Brand Audit Scorecard was developed to enable and sustain brand portfolio audits, divided into three dimensions (brand equity, brand contribution and strategic options).

Further research should aim at testing the proposed framework in different types of companies and countries.

This paper contributes to the brand audit and brand architecture literature by proposing a holistic framework that is not static.

The aim of this study is to determine the effects of brand components (CBBE, brand fit, brand image, brand reputation, brand familiarity) on consumers brand portfolio attitude via perceived risk (for two main portfolio strategies).

The study used a structured questionnaire to collect primary data from 636 consumers who made purchases from companies using house of brand (318) and branded house strategy (318). By conducting reliability and validity analysis, the model of this study was tested with confirmatory factor analysis and path analysis methods, using structural equation modeling.

According to the results of the path analysis, the effects of CBBE and brand reputation on brand attitude were confirmed for both house of brand and branded house strategy. Moreover, the full and partial mediating effect of perceived risk was proven in the relationships.

One of the limitations of the study is determining a portfolio of brands for each strategy and collecting data for these brands. In addition, since the number of consumers using brand portfolios could not be reached in the study, data could be collected using the purposeful convenience sampling method. For this reason, it is thought that research conducted with the data obtained through systematic sampling methods can yield more reliable results.

Managers of companies with a brand portfolio should work on a main strategy that enhances CBBE and brand reputation regardless of the strategy they use. After these two variables, the variable that portfolio managers need to address is brand fit.

It will offer different perspectives in terms of understanding which portfolio strategy is needed, and which predecessors and outputs can be produced. Also, the findings of the research will produce important results to reduce the perceived risks of consumers and increase their positive attitudes toward brand portfolios.

This paper aims to investigate the effects on corporate brand equity when a company moves from a house of brand strategy to a branded house. In fact, recently, most of large companies (Procter & Gamble, Unilever) are managing this swift in order to simplify and optimize their efforts.

A total of 433 consumers participated in a between-subject experimental design completing a questionnaire. Each respondent was exposed to one of eight hypothetical scenarios with real-existing brands. A moderated-mediation model was tested.

The number of individual brands interacts with the variety of product categories within the portfolio to define its internal consistency which, in turn, exerts a significant mediation effect on corporate brand equity.

The study supports the mental accounting process (subtyping vs bookkeeping), demonstrating how this psychological framework is applicable within brand management.

The study unveils a strong dichotomy: consumers award very small portfolios focused on a single product category or, conversely, they appreciate a wide and highly diversified brand portfolio. No chances for intermediate and hybrid solutions. Findings demonstrate that a brand architecture shift might be a flexible opportunity to manage an on-going diversification strategy.

The study is the first to analyse the importance of internal consistency within a brand portfolio in case of a shift in the portfolio strategy. Moreover, it investigates the effects since the first announcement of a linkage between the individual brands and the corporate one.

This paper seeks to address the following question: What causes firms to choose brand creation vs brand acquisition for brand portfolio expansion?

A multilevel interdisciplinary conceptual model is developed with nine factors at three levels of influence: the market, firm, and brand portfolio. Using 125 brand acquisitions and creations for 22 firms between 2001 and 2007, the model is tested using logistic regression to determine which factors significantly influence brand portfolio expansion strategy and whether they encourage acquisition or creation.

Significant factors were found at the market and firm levels, with competitive intensity of the market having the strongest effect, followed by the firm's financial leverage, market concentration, and market growth.

Contrary to prior expectations, external factors at the market and firm levels have an impact on choice of acquisition vs creation. However, internal firm factors may serve as moderators of strategy effectiveness.

This is the first study to empirically examine factors affecting the brand portfolio expansion strategy via brand creation versus brand acquisition across a variety of industries. From a methodological standpoint, one of the more serious and persistent problems facing prior brand research is the lack of brand‐level data, but this paper's approach overcomes this limitation by using media expenditures in the AdSpender database to represent brands within a category/market.