Branding may seem too “corporate” for a nonprofit but I’ve written in other posts that I don’t think that is true. Every organization has a brand. Every person has a brand. It is how your organization is perceived by the community, your donors, volunteers, clients, funders, partners, everyone. It’s your reputation. A brand is something to be protected and enhanced, not dismissed.
To that end, a brand architecture has a lot to do with how an organization is viewed. Brand architecture clarifies your mission, positioning and messaging not only for external constituents but also for internal stakeholders. Done correctly, an effective brand architecture will help an organization elevate overall awareness and stakeholder engagement.
There are three types of brand architectures:
- House of Brands
- Branded House
- Hybrid of both
Each architecture has advantages and disadvantages. The architecture an organization chooses should be based not only on positioning strategy but also on the structure of the organization and long term organizational strategy. There is much to consider.
How are you organized?
If your organization is a collection of disparate programs or services that don’t share clients or resources or if each program in your organization has a very distinct brand identity, the house of brand architecture makes the most sense. This is a set of separate brands that include their own logos, design identity and messaging strategies. The audience for each program or service is completely unique. This structure only makes sense if you cannot gain efficiencies by sharing resources or if you will hurt individual awareness by changing a distinct brand.
If your organization is a group of related programs or services that share clients or resources but still perform distinctly different functions, a branded house architecture is a good choice. This is a set of related sub-brands organized under a master brand. Each sub-brand typically shares a logo and some design elements as well as an overarching messaging strategy. Sub-brands benefit from this shared brand identity and messaging as well as from shared awareness.
A hybrid structure combines both models, usually within separate and distinct arms of a very large organization. This can be very confusing both internally and externally so should only be used when all stakeholders are aligned and very specific parameters are met.
Real life example
Our 100+-year-old social service organization recently went through an extensive rebrand in which we addressed the brand architecture issue. Up until that time, marketing and communications had been very siloed within our 20 programs, which had led to a mishmash of program names, logos, visual identities, messaging and brand awareness. There was no brand consistency or cohesiveness among programs. Stakeholders were confused or just not aware of the overall agency mission. They were only familiar with the program they donated or volunteered at. We were very much a house of brands, but the very worst example of one.
After many, many meetings and discussions with internal stakeholders including board members, executives and program directors, it was decided that we would transition our organization into a branded house architecture. The agency would become the master brand and that all of the programs would become sub-brands. This would mean a slight name change for many of the programs and a new integrated logo and messaging platform for all of them. It was a big step for our organization.
We needed to rebrand all of the marketing and communication strategies under the master brand. It was decided that most direct mail fundraising efforts would be under the master brand instead of the individual sub-brands, as it had been in the past. There was risk to this decision as donors tend to give their money for a very specific cause or program, not a brand. The new master brand messaging was also risky in that is might possibly confuse volunteers, community leaders or clients who were not aware of programs other than the one they are involved in. But there was incredible opportunity as well in terms of overall brand awareness and shared marketing resources. We spend many months planning the transition.
As we worked through the plan, we realized there was a distinct arm of the organization that would not benefit from losing their individual brand identity. These were social enterprises who needed their individual identities in order to keep their distinct revenue streams. So, we course corrected slightly and decided to adopt a hybrid brand architecture strategy.
My team officially launched the new brand internally first with a road trip tour to all programs. We spent this time meeting with program directors and managers to introduce the brand and explain the strategy behind our decisions. We backed this up with a new brand standards book and resources as well as branded swag. It was imperative we take the time to do this step because we understood that the rebrand would never go well externally if we did not have internal buy-in. It was time well spent.
We launched externally with a new integrated website and social media channels. We began a new public relations and communication standards program immediately. We phased in our direct mail program and added other marketing channels slowly throughout the year. It will take a few more years to change capital items like external signs and vehicles.
The process has gone surprisingly well. As I said, there was significant risk involved in rebranding but I think because we took the time to think about this rebrand strategy as an investment in the future. We made the decisions that are best for our agency in the long run. Even when we did see hiccups in the rebrand, we were able to recognize the issue, tweak our strategy and keep moving forward.
A rebrand is a marathon, not a sprint. The goal of our agency is to be viable for another 100 years, not just for the next five or ten. It’s been a rewarding experience.
Thinking about brand architecture may seem like an academic exercise but it can really crystallize your brand positioning, which in turn, will help you more effectively communicate your mission. That is beneficial to any nonprofit.
