Launching a new line, more beautiful, but identity chaos

Local cosmetics brands often face a very specific issue. When launching a second or third product line, each time the design is better than the last. However, when placed together on the shelf, they look like products from four different companies. No one intends to do this. It happens because each expansion is approached as an independent design project, not as a portfolio architecture decision.

Why does new design break equity

When a first product line has been on the market long enough, it gradually acquires what is called distinctive brand assets. These can be colors, typography, packaging layout, or sometimes a specific image. Customers do not consciously remember these things; they just recognize them at a glance. This is how memory works at a visual level.

When a new line is launched with a different design language, even if it is technically more beautiful, it does not inherit the assets that have been built. Customers have to learn from scratch. Worse, if the new line looks too different, it can negatively affect perceptions of the old line: "What is this brand doing?" This is not an aesthetic issue. This is a matter of brand equity being eroded.

A brand is the gut feeling of the customer. And that feeling is built from each recognition, each instance of consistency.

Marty Neumeier, The Brand Gap

Portfolio architecture: framework before design

Portfolio architecture is a map that answers a core question. How do the product lines in your portfolio relate to each other? And how do they relate to the parent brand? Without this map, each new product line is a design in a vacuum.

There are three common models. A branded house, or single house architecture, is when the entire portfolio carries the same name and parent identity, distinguished only by suffixes or secondary colors. House of brands, or multi-brand architecture, is when each line has its own name and identity, with the parent brand in the background. An endorsed brand, or endorsement architecture, is when a new line has its own name but is still tagged "by" or "from" the parent brand to borrow credibility.

Local cosmetics brands in Vietnam mostly fit into a branded house or endorsed brand model in the early stages, as they do not have enough resources to build equity for each sub-brand. The problem is that many brands choose this model in name but execute it like a house of brands: each line has different colors, fonts, and layouts. The result is that they do not benefit from either model.

The immutable layer and the layer allowed to change

The core of portfolio architecture in design is clear layering: what is immutable, and what is allowed to change by line.

The immutable layer consists of core identity assets: the logo and its placement, the primary color palette of the parent brand, the main typeface, and the principles of packaging layout structure. These elements must not be altered, regardless of how different the new product line's positioning may be.

The changeable layer consists of elements that distinguish each product line: the secondary color associated with that line, illustrative images or characteristic textures, the level of information on the packaging, and the tone of voice according to the segment. When these two layers are defined in advance, the designer has enough creative space. They still do not disrupt the overall identity.

The "premium line" trap leads to identity chaos

A common situation: a brand with a successful mainstream line decides to launch a more premium line to target the masstige segment. The design team wants the new line to look more upscale, so they change almost the entire visual language. As a result, customers of the old line do not recognize it as the same brand. Meanwhile, customers in the premium segment see the mainstream line next to it on the shelf and feel it is not upscale enough to justify a higher price.

Positioning by price segment should be addressed through portfolio architecture, rather than through a completely new design. If the positioning gap is large enough, an endorsed brand is a more appropriate solution. The premium line has its own name but includes "by [parent brand]" in a subordinate position to borrow credibility without causing confusion. If the gap is moderate, a branded house can still work. The condition is that the invariant layer is maintained, and the variable layer is distinct enough to convey "more premium" without denying the origin.

Documenting the system before scaling

The principle of tiering is only valuable if documented in an operational manner. A good brand system is a set of rules clear enough that a new designer or printing supplier can produce the next line without needing to ask each step. It should not just be a PDF presentation of attractive colors stored away in a drawer.

For a cosmetics portfolio, this document needs at least three sections. The first section defines the invariant assets: the exact primary color values according to Pantone/CMYK/RGB, the minimum spacing ratio around the logo, and the primary typeface along with usage rules. The second section is the secondary color system for each existing line, along with principles for adding new colors without conflict. The third section provides real-world application examples on three-dimensional packaging, using actual photographs instead of illustrative images.

When this system exists, each new product line does not have to start from a blank slate. Designers work within a defined framework, allowing for creativity in the right places. More importantly, customers still see a brand on the shelf, not an exhibition of random styles.

Consistency and repetition are the conditions for building equity. There is no shortcut.

Jenni Romaniuk, Building Distinctive Brand Assets (2018)