The term sub-brand sounds like an easily and understandable concept:

“Using an established brand to launch another brand.”

eg. Virgin -> Virgin Atlantic -> Virgin money -> Virgin mobile -> Virgin media

Virgin make it work very well, there an established company with a big reputable name but more often then not sub-brands using the same name don’t work out too well especially if your a small business.

Small businesses usually don’t have the brand power to pull off a sub-brand but that doesn’t mean you can’t make the sub-brand work for you because you don’t have to trade directly off of the mother-brand.

eg.

Major brands & sub-brands with different names

Coca cola -> Lilt – Five-alive

Whitbread – > Premier Inn – Costa Coffee

Volkswagen → Audi, Volkswagen, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, and overseas SEAT and Skoda.

The examples above do ask a tricky question. Are they really sub-brands or separate entities on their own? Each sub-brand is very different from the mother-brand, promoted in a very different way and holding their own set of brand values. In some cases the sub-brand were individual companies on their own before being bought out by a larger one.

At the end of the day the structure and decision of sub-branding probably came down to a business, financial, strategic and creative decision with the help of a brand consultant. What would work best for both the motherbrand & sub-brand. Look at it in another light you’ll see the possibilities.

Eg Using the mother-brand to name the sub-brand

Coke & Lilt -> Coca cola Lilt -> Coca cola Tropical -> Coca cola Jamaica.

Lilt sounds best.

Whitbread & Costa -> CostaBread -> WhitCosta ->Whitbread Costa

Costa!

Naming & strategy:

Naming plays a big part in sub-branding and small businesses often make a mistake to take the mother-brand and use it for the sub-brand. In general people think its a way to create brand power for the mother-brand but in essence it should be the other way around and that can only be achieved if you already have brand power.

Using the same name can work but it depends on the nature and relationship of the two brands. If it’s a simply extension of the business with a good link then its possible but if your creating a new business its wise not to relate it back to your existing one as a sub-brand.

Your best bet is to create something BRAND new altogether.

Ask these questions:

1. Will the mother-brand & sub brand create confusion amongst for your TA?
2. Is the mother-brand limited to sub branding opportunities?
3.Will the mother-brand & sub brand lead to a conflict in interests?

The art of SEO & Branding.

Despite my comments of small businesses using wrong tactics to sub brand many excel with the help of the internet and SEO, in fact its small businesses which have pushed sub-branding to another level.

I’ve seen small businesses using several websites with different names to sell one service in a differrent light. With the use of keywords they have practically created several separate identities for one business. They’ve been able to reach wider audiences and capitalise on the sub brand. Some have been done very quickly and lightly with the intention of pulling in a sale without the full brand values whilst others have gone all out to create a pure sub brand as an extension of a mother-brand.

Sub branding may sound like big business requiring brand power but it doesn’t. At the most basic level it just requires a little creativity, business acumen and clear thinking to make it work for smaller businesses.

How to get started with sub-branding a small business?

First thing to decide s whether you actiually need a sub-brand?

Just think of your business in another light? Think of another target market that you want to reach and adapt your values & image to suit them. Categorise your existing clients according to their different industries as well as their size.  Create an additional brand to target them individually and you’ll have the makings of a small business sub-brand.

You’ve probably heard what I have to say about Microsoft. In fact you’re probably bored of me mentioning problems with Internet Explorer, Word and Frontpage. Despite their dysfunctional software we still use them day in and day out and there’s no arguing that they’ve made an impact on the way we work.

They introduced Office to our world which has become the industry standard all in one business tool. 20 years on their releasing the latest version, Office 2010 with a new look.

Microsoft design has never been trend setting. Their logos, packaging and websites are always pretty standard, clean cut but nothing exceptional unlike its adversaries and colleagues such as Apple or HP.

The logo for Office XP set the brand 10 years ago symbolizing 4 pieces to a puzzle, each section in a different colour representing the office apps (word, powerpoint, excel and Outlook) as well as keeping with the windows theme. It had a slight playfulness to it which was nice but also a little cheap.

The new logo was a big improvement. Cleaner, dynamic, and modern with a small step away from the puzzle pieces. Tying into the new web tools built into office, the logo represented a new facelift that the suite went through but overall it still wasn’t mind blowing. Alongside were new icons which were nice, functional although a little cryptic in some cases.

The 2010 logo shows another step forward in the building of a brand. Moving full circle from the puzzle it’s now a dynamic unified representation of the office suite rather then one that’s separated by shape and colour. The whole design has been meshed into one symbol intended to reflect a suite
that works on multiple levels. Arrows moving from space to space (app to app) creates an energetic and streamlined approach, symbolising a cohesive func
tionality but is it an improvement?

Yes it is but is it mind blowing? Not really. It’s a nice logo and again a step in the right direction but just not there yet. Its layed out well but a small clash is still present between the font style and new icon. Throwing out the old colour scheme was a brave and admired step and the new orange which replaces it is modern and vibrant but is it a bit too orange?

Where MS take a step forward with the logo they also take a huge step back with a new icon set. More cryptic then ever we have an array of colours and letters to remember. Inconsistent typography and a mixed style of buttons. Gradient upon gradient creates mess whilst colourful yet confusing sums it up.

The ideas behind the new identity are strong. A unified, userfriendly and modern approach for the suite but overall in terms of design it’s just pretty generic and quite possibly “unprofessional.”

3/5

Coaches seem to have stepped up the gears in the past years. I’m seeing more of them take a stronger approach to brand, design and marketing. They’re not just setting up shop, their pushing the boat out to make sure that their seen as a unique operator amongst the crowd.

I started creating logos and then went onto complete corporate idenities from web to print but today we’re performing more and more work for coaches with fully interactive websites accompanied with sub-brands, e-shops and more printed material. The new innovative approach is definitely a step in the right direction but is the motive behind the progression the right resolution. Life coaches know they need a brand presence to step out from the crowd but which route should you take?

Problems of a life coach business.

Coaches always make the statement that each of their clients have very different problems. I’ve learnt that so is every life coach. They each have methods for solving problems and its particular compared to the next coach. The average Joe see life coaching as quite generic but each coach has their own twist, style, methods and resources.

This in fact is a unique selling point and possibly the making of your brand. Every life coach sells the same service but its you that makes your company individual. You’re selling yourself as apart of the service and you have to make sure that you portray some of that character in your brand.

When branding a lifecoach business add a little bit of you inside as well.

Your Target Audience:
Most life coaches I come across deal with this problem in a huge way and it takes some time to figure out the answer. The problem is that they’re trying to attract two audiences under one roof, the corporate clientelle and the public.

The first thing to do is split up the groups into three or four because there’s a hidden couple of groups which emerge from the other two. Its not a corporate customer and its not a member of the public, its the self employed or small business owner. They want to focus their career or personal life but their circumstances don’t quite fit into either of the two. This group sits in between making the whole situation a blur. How should you target these groups?

- Should you have 2-3 brands to target each audience?
- One business with 2-3 sub-brands?
- Or a general appeal to all?

Having 2-3 brands is the best idea allowing you to create separate offerings without confusing the groups and not boring the other two audiences. The public don’t want to know about training courses and communication for profit they want to know how it will affect them personally. The corporate clients don’t want to hear about being happy but profitable.

But what about the middle group of professional individuals? They want to know how to do it all but not on a corporate scale, a personal one.
Having separate brands to target each audience provides a specialist and driven strategy allowing you to market the business effectively, drawing a line between the two with no confusion. This is however the costly option requiring most work from you (managing 2-3 brands, 2-3 firms, and 2-3 services).

The second option of having one brand with two sub-brands is the most approachable strategy for you rather then the client. It’s like the above solution except cheaper and manageable allowing your business to develop in your own time, however it must be done strictly keeping a clear indication of what services are offered to the different audiences. It’s 2-3 brands under a motherbrand, an allround solution which is effective but not as clear as the first one.

The third option is the cheapest but not the best as it confuses the audience. It can work but it must be clear and concise. Once you’ve done that it falls under option 2.

Whatever strategy you take, create a clear message to each audience and keep each service individual. Consider your mother-brand and services then break them down into sub-brands.

Design:
Targeting businesses with services is easier then marketing to the public. Businesses want something in-particular, a sense of professionalism, with clear benefits, results and a relation to their business. The public however are attracted by personal attachment and visual results which is hard to do when you don’t know the person or have a product.

The strategy to solve these problems is sub-grouping for your target audience because as large a variety the public are, they still fall into groups and effective design can target that particular group.

Effectively your packaging each solution and directing it at a particular audience, marketing the benefits and results of your sub-brand even though its still available to a wider audience.

Marketing:
With the above design strategy, marketing becomes simpler. Before you had the problem of attracting 2-3 audiences with one piece of communication, neither swinging here or there but with 2-3 brands focusing on 2-3 audiences you can create 2-3 documents, 1 focusing on each for a stronger and specified message to the recipient.

This leads to 2-3 forms of delivery. The previous distribution was sent to both audiences via the same strategy but can now be separated and delivered specifically to reach each target.

The fact is life coaching is not a tradesman, public body or product which offers visual solutions to a problem but it targets the same general public as a service provider.

The strategy of brand, design and marketing for life coaches is an important one which can solve problems and create its own personal niche in the b2b and b2c sector.

Marketing a coaching business is not the easiest of tasks. Do you target the public or the corporates? Its a regular and common problem NLP coaches face and one that was solved visually with Infinity Associates. Having worked for corporations and starting up an array of businesses themselves, Chris & Adria Bannocks combined their creative yet disciplined skillsets for their new venture, Infinity Associates.

Chris and Adria wanted to develop an idea that they’d already put into place (Acuminous LTD), an early phase of an NLP and lifecoaching company which needed a new lease of life, a visual rebrand to match the new strategy behind the business. Based on a modern approach to training, coaching and personal development, it’s a a higher class of service, one which was original, professional yet appealed to both corporate and personal customers with a dynamic twist.

We began with the corporate identity in which Acuminous changed to Infinity Associates and then just to Infinity. Exploring ideas and themes we concluded whether the new company would have a dynamic and techy look or a warmer more friendlier approach.

After many revisions and concepts we designed the new logo along with a subrand to package a particular offering from Infinity, “Brainslim.” Following the logo we developed a matching website with modern functionality such as podcasts, downloads and blogs, all tied up into a CMS to control by the client.
The idea was to make a site which was useful to clients by offering them free advice on personal development. Within 6 weeks Conceptstore helped rebrand Acuminous into www.Inifnityassociates.co.uk.

Is it the brand that creates the design or the design that creates a brand ???

Its a tough one!
My thoughts are that the brand creates the design. Its the source and inspiration for a design project that creates the final piece BUT….

What if the final piece is no good! Does that mean that the brand is no good?

Sometimes its the final design piece alone that creates the premise of a future brand.

Many say that the brand doesn’t matter, its the design that sells it! Did you buy an MP3 player because of its brand, use and features or an ipod because the way it looks?

I myself have had jobs were the design really formed the brand. Others where the brand just spoiled the design.

Design is a communication of the brand. No matter how credible or great your business really is, a poor misguided visual representation can lead to doom. We all have to sell ourselves and thats what design does best, it sells.

Selling based purely on good looks though can also lead to doom. Its important to follow up your attractive presentation with real hard and honest truth. The visual brand must come alive into the real world and become a real brand, a trusted one and an excellent one.

When done properly its the brand that creates the design but like most pairings in life the brand is nothing without the design. Why? Because no one will ever know it existed?