Unsolicited Marketing Advice

Thousands of years ago, Julius Caesar declared that all Gaul was divided into three parts. Today, a similar observation can help put the wild territory of branding into perspective for marketing managers.

In the realm of corporate identity, there are three primary branding approaches:

• Independent branding
• Endorsed branding
• Monolithic branding

Independent Branding
Independent branding an approach where units of the organization carry separate (independent) nomenclature and design. It can be thought of as appearing “decentralized” in design and approach, and often this may be the parent company’s business model as well. It is sometimes referred to as free standing or product branding.

In the grocery store, turn your buggy down the soap aisle and you will find Proctor and Gamble products that follow an independently branded approach. Zest, Ivory and Safeguard are clearly three different bar soaps. One can even argue that they are three different businesses (each reaching a slightly different market segment). But they are not three different companies. Turn each box over and in small print you’ll find the P&G corporate name.

Independent branding can be an effective approach when you want to compete against yourself for the sake of capturing a larger market share overall. Independent approaches are also often the results of mergers and acquisitions where unity of approach was either unnecessary or undesirable. Finally, independent approaches can also be effective when political considerations require a bit of conceptual distance from the parent organization for the sake of cooperating with organizations that may be considered competitors for the company’s primary line of products or services. Thus, joint ventures frequently follow an independently branded approach.

In the field of hospitals and health systems, affiliates of the Saint Francis Health System (Tulsa, Oklahoma) largely follow an independent branding approach. The names of the facilities and their logos do not appear to be part of a family (for the most part ... the typeface is similar and logos for other hospitals in the system match each other).

Monolithic Branding
At the opposite side of the spectrum from independent branding is monolithic branding. In this approach, the parent company’s identity is dominant and the product or service is often described in generic terms. At the extreme, "generic" becomes numeric or alpha designations such as with BMW car models. Units in different geographic areas or market segments will be described by a simple geographic or segment identifier attached to the brand name.

Moving down the condiment aisle in the grocery store, Hienz products stand out for their monolithic approach. Hienz Ketchup, Hienz Mustard, Heinz Dill Relish and so forth. The Hienz name is preeminent while the product itself is described in a generic manner. The logotype and position of the logo are all very consistent.

Monolithic approaches can be an outcome of corporate egotism, or fueled by a desire to influence stock market investors. But monolithic branding can also be an effective technique to extend the reputation of one strong unit into similar markets – or into even quite different markets. Heinz moved from horseradish and ketchup to pickles, and then jumped to baby food. The trust and reputation developed in one area was used to leverage entrance into another market area (admittedly, Heinz has since sold its U.S. baby food unit to Del Monte and also holds independently branded products like Weight Watchers within its portfolio … branding is intrinsically messy).

Overall, monolithic approaches generally have a very corporate, structured format that is conducive to handling complexity, sometimes with less marketing effort than other approaches may require. They generally are the strongest approach for establishing a single brand identity among consumers. Of course, the advice of many marketing consultants aside, branding isn’t everything, and a single identity might not be necessary or desirable for every organization.

In the hospital arena, Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Inova Health System in Virginia are examples of systems that follow a predominantly monolithic branding approach. The brand (system) name and logotype (“bug”) are first, followed by the individual hospital name in a standardized format.

Endorsed Branding
Finally, endorsed branding approaches fall in the middle between independent and monolithic approaches. Organizations whose logos incorporate a tag line with the corporate identity are using an endorsed approach. Unlike the monolithic approach, the name of the individual unit is dominant with this approach. The parent company name plays a secondary or supportive role. The name of the parent company serves as the “seal of approval” and often appears in a diminutive form at the bottom or side of the logo.

In the cereal aisle of the grocery store, General Mills products follow an endorsed approach. The Kix, Chex or Lucky Charm names look very similar to an independently branded approach, but in the upper left corner is the General Mills logo as an endorsement.

Endorsed branding is often the “next generation” of identity for organizations formed by mergers and acquisitions. There is a desire to create “systemness,” so the corporate brand name is added as a tag line. This maintains a sense of independence for the new partners, while culturally moving the system toward a more unified approach. Endorsed branding is also a politically safe and fairly easy-to-implement approach to deal with a diverse set of organizational units.

Hospitals affiliated with Texas Health Resources and the St. Joseph Health System follow an endorsed approach (notice the bottom lines in each logo). Affiliates of Texas Health Resources lean somewhat more toward the independent approach, as shown by the separate logomarks (graphic “bugs”) and the different typeface for Presbyterian. On the other hand, the St. Joseph facilities follow an endorsed approach that leans more toward the monolithic side of the spectrum. Some St. Joseph affiliates even carry a secondary endorsement, “a ministry of the sisters of St. Joseph of Orange.”

It is sometimes hard to determine if a branding structure is monolithic or endorsed, since both may include elements of corporate and subsidiary identities. In some cases the generic nature of the unit name will identify the approach as monolithic, but this can be tricky when a geographic identifier is part of the unit name, giving it uniqueness more common to the endorsed approach. In such cases, the identity which is more dominant or in a “first-to-be-read” position will often provide the answer. When the corporate identity is dominant, you’re dealing with a monolithic brand. When the individual unit has the upper hand, you’re dealing with endorsed branding. Although the three branding approaches are actually a continuum rather than discrete categories, consumers will confirm that organizations in which both corporate and affiliate identities are treated equally also have a name: confusing.

Everything I Learned about Branding,
I Learned in the Grocery Store
Understanding the three types of branding can bring clarity to decisions about corporate identity and how to structure the branding of subsidiary organizations. Plus, by recognizing that your neighborhood grocery store is prime territory for simple examples of branding approaches, you can communicate to administration what otherwise is often seen as a complex and confusing topic. Such knowledge, however, can’t help you decide which brand of soap to buy at the grocery store. In such situations even Caesar would have just picked the cheapest one.

Technorati Tags: Branding

Labels: Branding

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by e-mail or RSS.
© 2009 Warren Allan Johnson
Posted by Warren Allan Johnson @ 10:12 AM | Permalink | |

---