Multi-brand group management governance

Owning multiple brands does not automatically mean being stronger. If not managed well, a multi-brand corporation can waste resources while diluting each other's competitive strength. The central question is not "how to make each brand more beautiful" but "how to ensure the entire operation system is coherent without losing the unique reason for existence of each brand."

The architectural map is a mandatory starting point.

Brand architecture is a map that clearly indicates where each brand in the portfolio stands: who it serves, what needs it addresses, and how it differs from the neighboring brand in the same system. Without this map, all subsequent decisions lack a foundation.

There are three common models that need to be defined from the start:

• House of brands: each brand operates independently, customers often do not know that the brands share the same owner. This is suitable when the brands serve very different segments or require absolutely distinct images.
• Branded house (single parent brand): a parent brand covers everything, with branches being just product or service categories. Strength is concentrated, but risks are also concentrated.
• Endorsed: A sub-brand operates independently but is linked to the parent brand as a guarantee. Balancing autonomy and overall trust.

The first thing Sinh Vũ does when entering a multi-brand corporation is to identify the current model and check whether the actual operations align with the chosen model. Usually, they do not align, and that is the source of most problems.

The deciding boundary: what is kept at the center, what is autonomously managed.

Brand governance is a framework that clearly defines who decides what, who has flexibility within which boundaries, and who provides support when challenges arise. Without this framework, the center will either over-control or completely loosen control.

Principle of reasonable division: the center retains the authority to decide on matters affecting the entire system, including brand architecture, positioning boundaries between brands, and core image standards. Each unit has autonomy over what depends on their market and customer segment, as long as they do not exceed the agreed boundaries.

The risk of overlap and internal competition

This is the most common risk and is often discovered late. When two brands within the same group start describing their target customer segments in very similar ways, or when one unit's campaign encroaches on another's market share instead of expanding the overall market, then the architecture is problematic.

Sign that requires attention:

• Two sales teams from different brands meet the same potential client and it is unclear who should follow up.
• Brand A's campaign is growing, but Brand B in the same system is decreasing accordingly.
• No one in the organization can quickly answer the question: "Which customers should choose brand A over brand B?"

Many brand teams and numerous touchpoints make it difficult to maintain strategic coherence and avoid overlap. Focus on governance functions for efficiency while maintaining autonomy and individuality for each brand.

42Signals · House of brands strategy

Common errors when managing a multi-brand operation

• There is no brand architecture map, or if there is, no one uses it in practice.
• Distribute time and resource funds evenly among brands, rather than concentrating on one brand and the highest leverage tasks at each stage.
• Expecting an external partner to do everything for every brand like a production house, while the real task at this level is management and direction.
• Every time a new brand is acquired (M&A), it is hastily integrated without updating the architecture map, leading to an increasingly complex system that no one understands fully.
• Lack of a mechanism for responding to category image crises: when a brand faces a media crisis, it is unclear whether to intervene centrally or let the unit handle it themselves.

The viewpoint of Sinh Vũ

For a multi-brand corporation, Sinh Vũ operates at the management level, not the production level. The job is to review the entire portfolio, maintain a coherent architecture according to each stage of the system's development, and apply standards to the units without erasing the unique personality that is the reason for each brand's existence.

This means that the hours allocated in a long-term package are not evenly distributed but allocated based on leverage: focusing on brands that are at a decisive stage, on what has the greatest impact on the entire system, and on business evaluations at the executive level to see the big picture rather than handling each individual task. Sinh Vũ supports and leads, but does not replace the internal brand teams of each unit.