An overbranded portfolio can starve strate-
gic brands and result in debilitating confusion.
The use of a disciplined brand consolidation
process in which a revised brand
portfolio structure is created
based on the assessment and pri-
oritization of a set of brands can
directly address the problem.
When this is coupled by disci-
pline in creating new brands, the
overbranding tendency can be
controlled.
Too many firms "discover"
that their portfolio contains too
many brands, they are over-
branded, the consequence of
which can range from inefficien-
cy, misdirected resources and
confusion to paralysis in manag-
ing the portfolio. Having too
many brands can result in ineffi-
ciency and waste caused by the
presence of numerous, ineffective
brand-building programs rather
than a few, focused, impactful
ones. It can also result in strate-
gic brands losing equity and mar-
ket position because marginal brands are absorb-
ing brand building dollars and, worse, manageri-
al talent.
Debilitating confusion is another probable
outcome from an overbranded portfolio. Rather
than clarity, there may be brands with complex
Even Brands Need
Spring Cleaning
N
othing is more emotional than a brand within an organization,"
says David Aaker. Yet, if companies do not take a more active
role in developing brand portfolio strate-
gies to support and enable their business strategies,
he warns, "They will find themselves in Henry
Ford's position when he woke up and realized not
all cars need to be black."
Vice Chairman of Management Consultancy
Prophet and author of several books on the sub-
ject of brand building, Aaker provides a roadmap
for companies facing pressures to grow and a rel-
evance challenge caused by fragmenting markets in
the new Brand Portfolio Strategy by Free Press, a
unit of Simon & Schuster.
In the following excerpt, he addresses the chal-
lenge of creating focus and clarity in the brand port-
folio. The reader is guided through a brand consol-
idation process that enables marketers to identify rel-
evant brands, prioritize them and evaluate their
importance with the context of an organization's
strategy goals. Brands that do not meet four crite-
ria--brand equity, business strength, strategic fit and branding options--he
argues, should be placed on notice, eliminated or merged. He writes, "The
goal is to have strong brands in key markets . . . the bias toward adding brands,
subbrand and line extensions can detract from that goal."
Book Excerpt
Toward Focus and Clarity by David A.Aaker,Vice Chairman of Prophet
David A. Aaker is vice chairman of management consultancy Prophet, San Francisco. His previous books include Brand Leadership, Building Strong
Brands and Managing Brand Equity. He lives in Orinda, Calif. Excerpt is reprinted with permission of Free Press/Simon & Schuster, 2004.
BRANDWEEK
THE NEWSWEEKLY OF MARKETING Vol. 45 No. 10 March 8, 2004
branding structures that lack logic and consis-
tency. Some brands may reflect product types
and others price-value and still others customer
types or applications. The branded offerings
may even overlap. The totality simply reflects
a mess. Customers have a hard time under-
standing what is being offered and what to pur-
chase. Even employees may be confused.
How can it happen? How does an organi-
zation become so undisciplined that brands
proliferate? To provide a remedy, it is well
worth looking at the causes.
The prime culprit is usually the process.
There should be discipline behind the brand-
ing process. There should be a group within
the organization with authority to approve the
introduction of new or acquired brands and sub-
brands.The decision to add a new brand or sub-
brand should be based on two questions:
1) Is the business associated with the new
brand or subbrand substantial enough and have
a long enough life to justify creating or main-
taining a brand?
2) Would the use of any exist-
ing brand inhibit or even detract
from the promise or would the
new offering tarnish the brand?
The decision to retain an
acquired or existing brand involves
slightly different questions: Is the
business associated with the acquired or existing
brand or subbrand substantial enough and have
a long enough life to justify creating or main-
taining a brand? Can brand equity from the
acquired or existing brand or subbrand be trans-
ferred to another brand within the portfolio with-
out putting that brand at risk?
The process can fail in several ways. The
most certain failure occurs when there is, in
fact, no process at all. Brands and subbrands
are added and/or retained in an ad hoc, uncon-
trolled manner with little concern for the total
brand architecture going forward. This is espe-
cially common in the decentralized organiza-
tional structure to which most firms adhere.
When a business unit manager is empowered to
be entrepreneurial, it is difficult to then remove
one of the strategic levers.
In others contexts, the process is there, but
mistakes are made. The prospects for a new
business are overestimated, for example, pre-
dictions of customer demand simply turn out
to be wrong. People within organizations
charged with coming up with a new product or
even new product modification in order to fuel
growth are inclined to exaggerate the "newness"
of the product, the sales prospects and its poten-
tial for long-term success.
When brands are acquired, the decision to
drop an acquired brand is often not so easy.The
acquired brand may have difficulty transferring
customer and market equity. Further, there may
be organizational sensitivities that cause elim-
inating acquired brands to create tensions in
an already difficult organizational merger.
One solution is to simply reduce the num-
ber of brands and/or prioritize brands so that the
key brands can be identified and thus support-
ed.The problem is that there is no natural mech-
anism to get rid of or dial down marginal or
redundant brands and all brands, even the most
marginal, have patrons and supporters that will
resist dumping or even withdrawing support
from a brand.Yet just as thinning a forest makes
it healthier because the remaining trees have
more access to sun and nutrients, so can prun-
ing the brand portfolio.
The case can thus be made for an objective
periodic review and pruning of the brand port-
folio supported by an in-depth analysis.A brand
portfolio review can precipitate decisions that
are too easily put off and inject objective infor-
mation into what is a highly subjective and
emotion-driven process. And it can
deal with political costs of making
tough decisions often with turf issues
by providing organizational cover.
The goal is to create a comprehen-
sive and objective process that will
systematically review the strength and utility
of the brands on the portfolio. Such a process,
termed the strategic brand consolidation
process, is organized into six steps as described
in the following:
IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT BRAND SET
The brand set will depend on the problem con-
text. It can include all brands and subbrands,
but often the focus will be on a subset, brand
groupings of comparable brands. For example,
an analysis for GM could include its major
nameplates, namely Chevrolet, Pontiac, etc.
Another analysis stage could then be subbrands
attached to a master brand. Thus, for Pontiac
the subbrands would be Bonneville, Firebird,
Montana etc. When brands are involved that
share similar roles, it becomes easier to evalu-
ate the relative strength.
ESTABLISH ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
The brand criteria will depend on the context
but, in general, there are four dimensions that
should be considered:
1) Brand Equity
· Awareness. Is the brand well known in the
marketplace?
· Reputation. Is the brand well regarded in
the marketplace? Does it have high perceived
quality?
· Differentiation. Does the brand have a
point of differentiation? A personality?
· Relevance. Is it relevant to today's cus-
tomers and today's applications?
· Loyalty.Are customers loyal to the brand?
2) Business Strength
· Sales. Is this brand driving a significant
business?
· Profit margin. Is this brand a margin con-
tributor? Or is the cost position or the market
conditions such that margins are unfavorable?
· Growth. Are the growth prospects for the
brand positive within its existing markets? Is
the brand likely to gain share or participate in
a growing market?
3) Strategic Fit
· Extendibility. Can the brand be extended
to other products either as a master brand or
endorser? Can it be a platform for growth?
· Business fit. Does the brand drive a busi-
ness that fits strategi-
cally with the direction
of the firm? Does it
support a product or
market that is central to
the future business
strategy of the firm?
4) Branding Options
· Brand equity trans-
ferability. Could the
brand equity be trans-
ferred to another brand
in the portfolio by
reducing the brand to a subbrand or by devel-
oping a descriptor?
· The potential to merge with other brands.
Could the brand be aggregated with other
brands in the portfolio to form one brand?
EVALUATING THE BRANDS
Brands should be evaluated with respect to the
criteria. It is usually both stimulating and illu-
minating to quantify the evaluation using a scale
(perhaps a seven-point scale), although there
should be no illusion that the quantification is
anything but suggestive.A total score--the sum
of the criteria scores--can be helpful, but any
decision will require deeper analysis. Introduc-
ing weighting is an option, although refining the
analysis is usually not worthwhile given the sub-
jectivity; it becomes over-quantification.
The profile of a brand across the criteria pro-
vides more detailed diagnostics. A brand that
is high on extendibility and business fit may
merit investment even if it is weak elsewhere.
And a brand that has a low score on a key
dimension like profit margin or business fit
may be a candidate for review whatever the oth-
er dimensions show.
The criteria scores will be based on the
business and market knowledge of the brand
team or perhaps some of their colleagues. If
there are gaps in knowledge, it might be worth-
"Just as thinning a forest makes it
healthier . . . so too can pruning a
company's brand portfolio."
Book Excerpt
while to go outside the groups to supplement.
Formal marketing research may be useful or
even indispensable to confirming assumptions
that might lead to some radical judgments
about the brand portfolio.
PRIORITIZE BRANDS
The brands that are to live, be supported, and
be actively managed need to be prioritized or
tiered or categorized in some way so that pre-
cious brand building budgets are allocated
wisely. The top tier will include the strategic
power brands, those with existing or potential
equity, that are supporting a significant busi-
ness or have the potential to do so in the future.
The top tier can also contain brands that can
provide a point of differentiation for important
business units. One type of second-tier brands
would be those brands with a specialized role
such as a flanker or silver bullet brand (a brand
that helps another brand--ThinkPad has helped
the IBM brand, for example).Another type, per-
haps a third tier, would involve a smaller busi-
ness, perhaps a niche or local business.
Another category of brands is the cash cow
brands, brands that should be dialed down into
a descriptive role with no resources behind
them at all. While such brands are not elimi-
nated, they no longer drain brand-building
resources from other more important brands.
Further, they are less likely to get in the way
of the total offering and create confusion in the
marketplace. The remaining brands should be
placed on notice, eliminated, or merged.
DEVELOP A REVISED BRAND
PORTFOLIO STRATEGY
With brand priorities set, the brand portfolio
strategy will need to be revised. Toward that
end, several brand portfolio structures should
be created, ranging from a simple structure
close to a branded house to a rich structure
more toward the house of brands side with sev-
eral levels of subbrands. The most promising
options are likely to be in between. The idea is
to create around two or three viable options
with perhaps two or three suboptions.
The major brand portfolio structure options
together with suboptions need to be evaluated
with respect to whether they:
· Support the business strategy going forward
· Provide suitable roles for the strong brands
· Leverage the strong brands
· Generate clarity both to customers and to
the brand team
Consider the brand consolidation process that
the Safeway grocery chain went through with
its private label program. Most of its 25 private
label brands were very weak and were not cap-
turing any synergy.After eliminating brands that
lacked a supportable role, four brands emerged.
Safeway Select was the premium brand, usually
positioned as equal or superior to the best brands
in a category, whereas the "S" brands were the
value brands always priced among the lowest in
each category. The other two brands, Lucerne
in the dairy department and Mrs. Wright for
packaged bakery items, were perceived to have
significant equity and were retained. This brand
rationalization decision was based on a realistic
appraisal of the existing brand equities, the val-
ue proposition offered to customers, the eco-
nomics of carrying extra brands, and the brand-
building synergies of having the two base brands
all over the store.
MIGRATING THE STRATEGY
The final step is to implement the portfolio
strategy by transitioning either abruptly or grad-
ually to a target strategy. An abrupt transition
can signal a change in the overall business and
brand strategy, it becomes a one time chance
to provide visibility and credibility to a change
affecting customers. So when Norwest Bank
acquired Wells Fargo and changed the name of
Norwest to Wells Fargo, they had the opportu-
nity to communicate new capabilities that
would enhance the offering for customers. Nor-
west customers were assured that they would
benefit from the electronic banking competence
ofWells Fargo while retaining the personal rela-
tionships which was a hallmark of Norwest.
The change in the brand promise will need
to be communicated with credibility based on
real substance behind new positioning. Other-
KNOW YOUR TERMS: A BRAND PORTFOLIO GLOSSARY
Whenever a product offering is proposed, it needs to be identified to customers
by a brand or set of brands. The brand set with product-defining roles reflects
an external view of the brands from the customer's perspective. Each brand will be
in one of the following roles: master brand, endorser brand, subbrand, descriptor,
product brand, umbrella brand, branded differentiator or brand alliance.
A MASTER BRAND is the primary indicator of the offering, the point of reference.
Visually, it will usually take top billing, such as 3M in the brand 3M Accuribbon.
An ENDORSER BRAND serves to provide credibility and substance to the offering
(e.g., General Mills endorses Cheerios). Its role is to represent an organization
and its credibility and substance is based on the strategy, resources, values and
heritage of that organization.
A SUBBRAND augments or modifies the associations of a master brand in a specific
product-market context (e.g., Porsche includes the subbrand Carrera). Its role is to
create a brand that will be significantly different from the master brand, perhaps by
adding an attribute dimension or a personality element, and thus be appropriate for
a particular product or segment.
DESCRIPTORS describe the offering, usually in functional terms (e.g., aircraft
engines, appliances, light bulbs). Although not brands per se, descriptors play key
roles in any portfolio strategy.
A PRODUCT BRAND defines a product offering consisting of a master brand and a
subbrand (Toyota Corolla), or a master brand plus a descriptor (Apple-Cinnamon
Cheerios).
An UMBRELLA BRAND defines a grouping of product offerings (Microsoft Office
Word, Microsoft Office Excel, etc.) under a common brand (Microsoft Office). The
umbrella brand, such as FedEx eBusiness Tools, can be a more appropriate and
effective vehicle to gain relevance, visibility and differentiation than individual prod-
uct brands, such as eShipping Tools, eCommerce Solutions and eCommerce Builder.
A DRIVER ROLE reflects the degree to which a brand drives the purchase decision and
defines the use experience. While master brands usually have the dominant driver
role, endorsers, subbrands, or even descriptors or second-level subbrands (that is,
subbrands to subbrands) can also play driver roles that can vary in intensity.
Toyota plays more of the driver role than Corolla, but both have influence.
wise the one time chance to make a statement
will be wasted. If the revised business strategy
is not in place the effort will backfire. If, for
example, the Wells Fargo technology cannot
be delivered, the best course would be to delay
the name change until the substance behind the
new position can be delivered.
The other option is to migrate customers
from one brand to another, gradually. This will
be preferred when:
«here is no newsworthy reposition that will
accompany the change
· Customers that may not have high involve-
ment in the product class may need time to learn
about and understand the change and
· There is a risk of alienating
existing customers by disrupting
their brand relationship.
The transfer of the Contadina
brand to the Buitoni brand provides
an illustration. Nestlé rebranded a
pasta offering acquired in 1987 as Contadina
Pasta and Cheese. A year later, Nestlé pur-
chased Buitoni. Although the Buitoni presence
in the United States was much weaker than that
of Contadina, it was the more authentic Italian
brand and was much stronger in Europe.
Buitoni had an Italian heritage that went back
to 1827 when Mamma Giulia Buitoni first sold
pasta commercially. Its home and symbol, Casa
Buitoni, is an ongoing source of new recipes
and products. A decision was thus made to
make Buitoni the Nestlé Italian brand.
The conversion started in 1994 when Con-
tadina was endorsed with Della Casa Buitoni
(from the house of Buitoni). Imagery and equi-
ty from both brands went into the package
design. In 1998 the Buitoni endorsement was
increased and the visual symbol changed from
a woman to the house. In 1999 the name was
changed to Buitoni with a Contadina endorse-
ment. In 2001, Nestlé sold the Contadina
brand clearing the way for the final conversion
to Buitoni.
KEEP YOUR PERSPECTIVE
So, fewer brands are better and the best archi-
tecture is a single brand, perhaps the corpo-
rate brand--the branded house. Not exactly!
It is not that simple.
It is appropriate to put the role of a master
brand in perspective by reviewing some of the
reasons why it can be damaging to stretch a
brand over too many products. A master brand
might lack the credibility and authenticity need-
ed, for example. Black & Decker does not have
the credibility to make power tools for the pro-
fessional carpenter; a new brand, deWalt, was
needed to break through.
Or, the value of creating a brand around a
segment or application may require a separate
brand. Thus, P&G brands such as Head &
Shoulders and Pantene have developed images
with no compromises because they are stand-
alone brands. A related issue is when a niche
brand has a tradition and loyal following and
transferring that equity to a master brand might
be difficult or impossible. For example, some
prestige private banking brands faded when
they were acquired by a major investment
house, losing their brand and their customer
relationship.
Otherwise, a master brand may have con-
notations that make it unacceptable.The Clorox
corporate brand could not be used on their food
products like Hidden Valley Dressing and even
associating it with cleaning products that do not
involve bleach is a stretch. Ford may be too cor-
porate for some of their target segments.
Or else, a brand extension may diffuse a clear
image and thus reduce the brand's equity, espe-
cially if some part of the brand's DNA is based
on a product class association or perhaps excel-
lence in some aspect of the product class.
OVERCOMING ORGANIZATIONAL BIAS
There are alternatives to using a master brand
to drive the business across products and mar-
kets. A master brand can be leveraged with a
subbrand or as an endorsed brand. Another
option is to leverage the master brand using
linked brand names such as the CitiGroup
linked names which include CitiMortgage and
CitiBanking.As a result the various brands can
have some space but the master brand still acts
as a visible umbrella over them.
The strategist should always remember that
the goal is to have strong brands in the key mar-
kets that support the business strategies going
forward and to have effective, efficient brand-
building programs. Having the same brand
across products does not necessarily enhance
this goal. The key is what the brand stands for
in the customer's mind and how that can be
evolved or changed to take on a larger task.
There is a bias toward adding
brands, subbrands and line extensions
to capture niche opportunities and to
build brand platforms.
However, it is easier to add than
subtract. Brands that have lost their
purpose or will never be viable should be
deleted, phased out, dialed down, combined
with other brands or offerings or, put on the
shelf and saved for a future application. Orga-
nizations instinctively want to solve a brand
problem by turning it around or to engage in
benign neglect. Unfortunately, there is rarely
a brand killing champion willing to battle
these organizational biases.
There are two implications to consider. First,
new brands, subbrands and line extensions
should be added only when they are truly jus-
tified. There should be sunset rules, under-
standing as to what conditions should prompt
a decision to kill or dial down the brand. The
trigger point may be a failure to support a busi-
ness or the fact that its purpose is over because
the trend that prompted it faded or because the
promotion to which it was tied is over.
A second implication is that periodically it
is healthy to take a close look at the brands in
the brand family to evaluate their roles and their
performance. Weak brands, brands that no
longer fit the strategy, should be candidates for
removal from the portfolio.
The end result can be a healthier, more
focused brand architecture.
"Although the Buitoni presence in the U.S.
was much weaker than that of Contadina,
it was the more authentic Italian brand."
Book Excerpt
Copyright 2004 VNU Business Media, Inc. Reprinted with permission from Brandweek.
For reorders call RSiCopyright at 651.582.3800. For subscription information call 800.722.6658 or visit www.brandweek.com.
401919