Multi-brand group: how to differentiate naming architecture and voice.
When a corporation has two or more brands, incorrect naming and voice differentiation is the quickest way for customers to fail to recognize who is who.
For a multi-brand corporation, you need to finalize two things simultaneously: the positioning of each brand on the relationship spectrum (from a common brand house to a house of many brands) and the voice axis so that each sub-brand sounds different while still sharing the common DNA of the corporation. Finalize the architecture first according to strategy, meaning if you want to consolidate reputation under one name, you need to isolate risks between brands. Only then can you differentiate the voice for each brand based on its industry and customer group.
- want to consolidate the group's credibility under one parent brand using a common branding house
- the sub-brand needs its own identity but still relies on the parent brand's credibility
- sub-brands easily confused or targeting distinctly different client groups
- allowed each sub-brand to name itself and choose its own voice
- for all sub-brands to speak in the same voice, losing the reason for their separation.
Most corporations come to Sinh Vũ in one of two states: either all their sub-brands are saying the same thing to the point that customers do not understand why they exist separately, or each sub-brand is doing its own thing to the extent that no one can tell they are from the same parent company. Both are signs of a lack of architecture. And the architecture here consists of two layers that must be designed together: naming conventions and differentiating voices.
Brand relationship spectrum: not choosing one of two.
Aaker and Joachimsthaler describe the relationship between brands within a corporation as a continuous spectrum, not two discrete choices. The two extremes of this spectrum are:
- Branded house: all products and services carry a single name, the name of the corporation. Prestige concentrates in one point, communication costs are lower, but risks are also concentrated in one point.
- House of brands: each brand exists completely independently, and customers do not know they belong to the same group. Segmentation is well isolated, with no cross-contamination risk, but the cost of building each brand is significantly higher.
Between those two extremes are intermediary forms: endorsed brands (sub-brands with their own names but labeled "by Group X") and sub-brands (combining the group name with the product's name). Most groups actually use a mix of positions along this spectrum, not forcing a single extreme. Your task is to determine where each sub-brand belongs and then name it accordingly.
The brand relationship spectrum is a continuous range. Don't force the corporation into one extreme. Place each brand at the right point on the spectrum, then design from that point.
David Aaker & Erich Joachimsthaler, Brand Relationship Spectrum
Make a strategic decision before deciding on a name.
Choosing a position on the spectrum is not an aesthetic question but a strategic one. You need to answer two questions before naming:
- Want to consolidate reputation or isolate risk? If the corporate name is strong and the sub-brands can leverage that strength, pull them closer to the parent name. If a sub-brand serves a very different segment or has its own risks, distance it to prevent issues from dragging the whole family down.
- Do sub-brands compete with each other? If they are in the same segment and target the same customers, bring them closer together to avoid resource dilution. If the customers are very different, keep them apart so each brand can communicate separately with the right audience.
Once the strategic answer is obtained, the new brand name can be accurately written, as the name must reflect the position on the spectrum, not the other way around.
Four voice axes to differentiate each brand
Nielsen Norman Group identifies four axes to measure and define a brand's voice:
- Humor and seriousness
- Formal and casual.
- Respectful and unconventional
- Excited and calm.
This is a measurable tool, not subjective. Each sub-brand is scored on each axis, and that score set is the brand's voice identity. Sinh Vũ uses this axis set for two purposes: to maintain some common axes as the group's genes, and to adjust the remaining axes for each brand according to its industry and customer group. The result is that brands sound different but still have recognizable family ties.
An important note from research by the Nielsen Norman Group: tone of voice significantly affects customer perception. Specifically, excessive humor in serious industries like finance or healthcare can reduce credibility. Therefore, sub-brands in any industry must adjust their tone according to that industry, rather than using a single tone for the convenience of the content team.
Common brand house: reputation is concentrated on one name, lower communication costs, suitable when products are closely related and the parent name is strong enough. Risk: if one sub-brand encounters issues, it can drag down the parent name.
A house of multiple brands: each brand is independent, isolating risk well, suitable for very different segments. Risk: the cost of building each brand is much higher and the group does not accumulate common name value.
Common mistakes when lacking architecture
- Each sub-brand names itself and chooses its voice based on the preferences of the person in charge at that time, resulting in the group appearing as a jumble of unrelated companies.
- Consolidating everything under one parent name without preparing for the scenario where a sub-brand faces issues that could drag the entire family into trouble.
- Enable all sub-brands to speak with one voice because the content team uses a shared style guide. This eliminates the reason for brand separation.
- No architectural handbook to maintain consistency when adding new brands. A few years later, the architecture gradually breaks down with each small decision made by team members.
The viewpoint of Sinh Vũ
Sinh Vũ calls this the domain of the Corporate Language Package: creating a naming architecture for multiple brands and writing a voice guideline that distinguishes each sub-brand while maintaining a common gene. The output is not just a beautiful identity system. The output is a language law so that each time the corporation creates a new brand, the team knows how to name it and adjust the voice without breaking the established whole.
The first question Sinh Vũ asks when meeting with a corporation is not "Does the new name sound good?" but rather: "Where do you want this brand to stand on the spectrum, and for what strategic reason?" From that answer, everything else can be decided.
Decision checklist
Topic: Multi-brand corporations: naming architecture and distinguishing voices. Sinh Vũ guide, sinhvu.com
Select each item you find appropriate, then print or save as PDF to take with you.
If you have marked most of the signs above, this is the time to discuss in more detail. Sinh Vũ can help you review and propose a direction.
References
David Aaker & Erich Joachimsthaler, Brand Relationship Spectrum (referenced via BrandStruck). Nielsen Norman Group, The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice. Nielsen Norman Group, The Impact of Tone of Voice on Users' Brand Perception.
Frequently asked questions
Does a group with three sub-brands necessarily need three different voices?
It is not necessary for the three voices to be completely independent, but each brand must sound different enough for customers to distinguish them. You can maintain some common voice axes as the group gene, then adjust the remaining axes for each brand according to its industry and customer group. The danger is when three brands sound exactly the same, as there would then be no reason to separate the brands.
When a corporation adds a new brand, how can the architecture be maintained without breaking?
A language architecture handbook is needed to clearly outline naming conventions and tone measurements for each position on the spectrum. Each time a new brand is created, the team refers to the handbook to know how to name it and adjust the tone, rather than starting from scratch. Without this handbook, the architecture will gradually break down with each small decision made by individuals.