BR-ND Brand Fan Model in the SWOCC selection

With this inventory as a checklist, three steps are recommended:

1. The brand portfolio audit – Where per proposition (1a. individual analysis) and overarching (1b. portfolio structure analysis) the current positions and relationships in the brand portfolio are examined.
2. The interpretation and creation phase – Where the core business and brand positioning of the master brand are taken as a starting point and other determinants are examined that determine the desired position of propositions in the brand portfolio (2a. strategy-portfolio translation). Different scenarios are developed in brand architecture: the combination of visual and verbal elements that indicate the relationship with the master brand, or its absence (2b. portfolio-scenario translation).
3. The decision-making and implementation phase – Where scenarios are checked for fit and feasibility (3a. gap analysis), a choice is made and adjustments are planned (3b. transition planning).

Practice

In practice, almost every brand issue has a brand portfolio component. Brand positioning and brand portfolio are two sides of the same coin. Well executed, they reinforce each other. Sometimes brand portfolios expand, then it's a trend to rationalize. Within one organization, brands can also be removed from portfolios, while sub-brands or labels are added. It's important to choose the best solution per proposition and not paint everything with the same brush.

Package insert

Because the most efficient brand portfolio strategy is one brand – that is after all the simplest and cheapest to manage – Cramer (2005) suggests using 'One brand, unless...' as a starting point. The 'unless' lies in the fact that this is not always the most effective and strongly dependent on the master brand.

Often in brand portfolio issues, assumptions are made that are not validated. Fact checking is important because brand portfolio decisions seem rational, but are strongly emotional and there are often major consequences in terms of finances, culture and communication.

The brand fan helps brand managers and other stakeholders look at the goals of the bigger picture. Hill and Lederer (2001) offer an alternative tool with their Brand Portfolio Molecule Approach. This (software) tool is based on the same theory, but maps not only one's own brands but also other brands in the category as well as the positioning, communication and symbolism. This provides a more complete, but also more complex picture.

Sources

Aaker, D.A.A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). The brand relationship spectrum: The key to the brand architecture challenge. California Management Review, 42(4), 8-23.

Cramer, K. (2005). Onder Moeders Paraplu? Determinanten en effecten van merkportfoliostrategieën. Amsterdam: SWOCC.

Hill, S., & Lederer, C. (2001). The infinite asset: Managing brands to build new value. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Laforet, S., & Saunders, J. (1994). Managing brand portfolios: How the leaders do it. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(5), 64-76.

Olins, W. (1989). Making business strategy visible through design. London: Design Council.

This article is also published in SWOCC Brand Management Models: The SWOCC Selection 2020

Challenge

How can the portfolio and architecture of the brand be optimized?

Solution

With how many and which brands, sub-brands and labels does an organization bring its offering to market? For these and other brand portfolio issues, Dr Kim Cramer, Ivo Grupping and Alexander Koene (2009) developed the brand fan. This model simplifies brand portfolio management by visualizing the current and desired brand portfolio structure and architecture.

The model is based on the relationship between the dominance of the master brand versus the dominance of individual or sub-brands. The brand fan is a further development of the BrandQuadrants model that was developed in 1994 by Globrands in collaboration with Essent.

User manual

In the brand fan, the master brand is central: the corporate brand, or any other brand from which position the portfolio is viewed. It can be Unilever, for example, but also Dove or Unox.

The model describes:

• The position where propositions (products and services), sub-brands and individual brands are located.
• The brand architecture rules belonging to that specific position, which prescribe the visual and verbal expression.

The model distinguishes four levels that – in a continuum – describe the degree of differentiation from the master brand. The levels are inspired by Olins' (1989) classification and typologies by Laforet and Saunders (1994) and Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000).

Levels 1 and 2 are subordinate to the master brand. The brand architecture of propositions at these levels must fully (level 1) or largely (level 2) follow the visual and verbal identity of the master brand.

Levels 3 and 4 transcend the master brand. Here belong propositions that for certain reasons need to be differentiated. For example, because they are aimed at different target groups with different needs or at market segments where the master brand has no credibility. Sometimes the master brand is not the full owner of the propositions or they are about to be sold. Based on such determinants, these propositions deserve their own brand. Therefore, the brand architecture is largely (level 3) or completely (level 4) separate from the verbal and visual identity of the master brand.

To determine when which strategy is most appropriate, understanding is needed of the determinants of brand portfolio management. In Kim Cramer's dissertation (2005) an inventory of determinants and their influence has been compiled.

More about brand portfolio strategy and brand architecture