Startup: naming VS branding
This note will be primarily useful for startups at the very beginning of their difficult but glorious business path, when they are not (for any reason) willing to spend resources on branding, but already understand the need for this work in the future.
Recently, working on brand and branding strategies for one large Internet company, I was faced with a situation where the brand architecture was already predetermined during the product naming phase and the company itself (and it was impossible to change anything), which ultimately resulted for the creation of a fairly complex and non-trivial configuration of brands.
This could have been avoided (and thus make life easier for everyone) if, at the naming stage, the future configuration of the brands and the possible consequences would be taken into account.
Of course, there is no opposition (as the title of this note could be interpreted incorrectly) between the branding and naming processes. However, if at the very beginning of the company's life and product (when they usually do naming) to lose sight of its influence on the brand strategy (which they usually begin to develop later), then you can greatly narrow your options space in the very near future ...
To begin, briefly define the meaning of the term "brand", which I use in my work.
So, a brand is, on the one hand, an expectation of gain from a certain branded product (by a client), on the other - a promise of gain (from the company).
The process of developing a brand strategy is the process of developing a brand promise (consisting of analysis, research, synthesis and creative work), the first stage of which is the definition or design of brand architecture *.
Brand architecture
Brand architecture is the relationship (and mutual influence) of brands on each other in the eyes of consumers, to whom these brands are presented to them simultaneously. For example, Renault Megane (Renault is both a superbrand and a corporate brand, Megane is a subordinate brand) or Blogger / Gmail by Google (Blogger / Gmail are brand facades, Google is both a brand foundation and a corporate brand).
So, there are * 7 types of brand architecture:
1. Single brand - no architecture, in the eyes of the consumer, a single brand is not associated with any other.
2. Brand hierarchy - classical architecture, in which the main weight is superbrand, and subordinate brands usually serve for more accurate positioning taking into account the function or the target product (for example, Renault Megane).
3. Brand-basis / brand-facade - a more modern design, in which emphasis is placed on the brand-facade, and the brand-base serves as if to reassure consumers and / or impart a certain semantic background to the promise of the brand-facade and doesn’t light up much (example - Blogger / Gmail from Google).
4. Patronage - a patronized brand helps (usually not for a long time) the patronized brand “to gain momentum”, brings it “into orbit”.
5. Umbrella brand - architecture, in which different products go under the same brand (for example - Dunhill).
6. Co-branding - co-branding. One product under the brands of two different companies (HP computer with Windows Vista).
7. Accompanying brands - architecture, in which the main brand is accompanied by auxiliary (and most often short-term non-product) brands. These can be brands of stocks, service centers (Apple Centers), etc.
In addition, you can distinguish the brand levels :
- coalition of companies / brands,
- corporate brand,
- multibrand
- brand of a series of goods,
- separate brand,
- brand of activity or process.
')
So, what to consider when naming:
1. Brand is a promise.
2. Different products / audiences may require different promises / brands.
3. One name (name) is one brand, i.e. one promise (!), regardless of what it refers to (product or company).
4. Before you start naming for the company and products, decide (research, design) how the promises of brands will relate to each other in the future.
5. Whether the name of the company and the main product will coincide or not - this aspect of naming largely determines the future architecture of the brands.
Consider two simple mini cases to illustrate.
1. Corporate umbrella brand architecture.
This architecture implies one brand (and one promise) for the company and all its products. If we decide to launch a new product to the market, for which the promise does not fit, contained in the nonsense Pink Elephant (even as a brand basis), then we will have to register a new company or carefully hide (which is unlikely to succeed) our company name - manufacturer (which has already become a corporate brand). Otherwise, we will get a conflict of promises and reduce all the work on building the brand to nothing.
However, such an architecture also has its advantages, the main one being the low cost of launching a new product on the market (under an umbrella brand)
2. Single brand architecture or corporate brand base / brand facade or brand hierarchy.
This naming will allow you to build several brand architectures. We have the freedom to make a corporate brand (with its promise!) Out of Blue Sparrow or not. If not, then we have two single unrelated brand. If we do - then for each brand of the product we can create our own configuration (promises), for example the following:
In this case, we will first have to develop the Blue Sparrow corporate brand strategy, considering its intended use as a foundation brand and a superbrand, then we will be able to give our own bright promise to the Yellow Bunny brand facade (which however will dovetail with the brand promise basics), and, finally, we will be able to more precisely position the “product B” for its audience with the help of the clarifying promise of the subordinate brand (series) “The Pied Thrush”
Conclusion
Starting a new business is important to lay a good foundation for all components of business success. A good name for the company and the product is not only a reason to practice in the creative and to check for the instinct of relevance and relevance, but also largely predetermines the future architecture of brands, branding strategy and, as a result, the quantity, quality and loyalty of your future consumers.
* For details, see “Birth of a brand” by Dana Herman.
Recently, working on brand and branding strategies for one large Internet company, I was faced with a situation where the brand architecture was already predetermined during the product naming phase and the company itself (and it was impossible to change anything), which ultimately resulted for the creation of a fairly complex and non-trivial configuration of brands.
This could have been avoided (and thus make life easier for everyone) if, at the naming stage, the future configuration of the brands and the possible consequences would be taken into account.
Of course, there is no opposition (as the title of this note could be interpreted incorrectly) between the branding and naming processes. However, if at the very beginning of the company's life and product (when they usually do naming) to lose sight of its influence on the brand strategy (which they usually begin to develop later), then you can greatly narrow your options space in the very near future ...
To begin, briefly define the meaning of the term "brand", which I use in my work.
So, a brand is, on the one hand, an expectation of gain from a certain branded product (by a client), on the other - a promise of gain (from the company).
The process of developing a brand strategy is the process of developing a brand promise (consisting of analysis, research, synthesis and creative work), the first stage of which is the definition or design of brand architecture *.
Brand architecture
Brand architecture is the relationship (and mutual influence) of brands on each other in the eyes of consumers, to whom these brands are presented to them simultaneously. For example, Renault Megane (Renault is both a superbrand and a corporate brand, Megane is a subordinate brand) or Blogger / Gmail by Google (Blogger / Gmail are brand facades, Google is both a brand foundation and a corporate brand).
So, there are * 7 types of brand architecture:
1. Single brand - no architecture, in the eyes of the consumer, a single brand is not associated with any other.
2. Brand hierarchy - classical architecture, in which the main weight is superbrand, and subordinate brands usually serve for more accurate positioning taking into account the function or the target product (for example, Renault Megane).
3. Brand-basis / brand-facade - a more modern design, in which emphasis is placed on the brand-facade, and the brand-base serves as if to reassure consumers and / or impart a certain semantic background to the promise of the brand-facade and doesn’t light up much (example - Blogger / Gmail from Google).
4. Patronage - a patronized brand helps (usually not for a long time) the patronized brand “to gain momentum”, brings it “into orbit”.
5. Umbrella brand - architecture, in which different products go under the same brand (for example - Dunhill).
6. Co-branding - co-branding. One product under the brands of two different companies (HP computer with Windows Vista).
7. Accompanying brands - architecture, in which the main brand is accompanied by auxiliary (and most often short-term non-product) brands. These can be brands of stocks, service centers (Apple Centers), etc.
In addition, you can distinguish the brand levels :
- coalition of companies / brands,
- corporate brand,
- multibrand
- brand of a series of goods,
- separate brand,
- brand of activity or process.
')
So, what to consider when naming:
1. Brand is a promise.
2. Different products / audiences may require different promises / brands.
3. One name (name) is one brand, i.e. one promise (!), regardless of what it refers to (product or company).
4. Before you start naming for the company and products, decide (research, design) how the promises of brands will relate to each other in the future.
5. Whether the name of the company and the main product will coincide or not - this aspect of naming largely determines the future architecture of the brands.
Consider two simple mini cases to illustrate.
1. Corporate umbrella brand architecture.
This architecture implies one brand (and one promise) for the company and all its products. If we decide to launch a new product to the market, for which the promise does not fit, contained in the nonsense Pink Elephant (even as a brand basis), then we will have to register a new company or carefully hide (which is unlikely to succeed) our company name - manufacturer (which has already become a corporate brand). Otherwise, we will get a conflict of promises and reduce all the work on building the brand to nothing.
However, such an architecture also has its advantages, the main one being the low cost of launching a new product on the market (under an umbrella brand)
2. Single brand architecture or corporate brand base / brand facade or brand hierarchy.
This naming will allow you to build several brand architectures. We have the freedom to make a corporate brand (with its promise!) Out of Blue Sparrow or not. If not, then we have two single unrelated brand. If we do - then for each brand of the product we can create our own configuration (promises), for example the following:
In this case, we will first have to develop the Blue Sparrow corporate brand strategy, considering its intended use as a foundation brand and a superbrand, then we will be able to give our own bright promise to the Yellow Bunny brand facade (which however will dovetail with the brand promise basics), and, finally, we will be able to more precisely position the “product B” for its audience with the help of the clarifying promise of the subordinate brand (series) “The Pied Thrush”
Conclusion
Starting a new business is important to lay a good foundation for all components of business success. A good name for the company and the product is not only a reason to practice in the creative and to check for the instinct of relevance and relevance, but also largely predetermines the future architecture of brands, branding strategy and, as a result, the quantity, quality and loyalty of your future consumers.
* For details, see “Birth of a brand” by Dana Herman.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/5771/
All Articles