Summary

At moments of growth or market shift, the reflex is to decide masterbrand versus sub-brands too quickly. The real problem is choices that don’t match how customers buy. Clarity returns when portfolio rules and signalling set the structure. Execution tightens.

→ Watch more videos in this playlist on YouTube

Our Perspective

What this means for leaders navigating growth, change or transformation in their organisation.

The Real Choice

Masterbrand versus sub-brands is rarely a creative debate; it’s a decision about where complexity actually lives. If the market sees one problem and you’re offering several ways to solve it, a single promise can carry the load. When needs and buying contexts truly diverge, naming differences is practical, not indulgent. Harvard Business Review notes that Coca-Cola pulled its variants under a single “One Brand” to raise recognition, streamline effort, and safeguard equity across its range.

The mistake is to match structure to your organisation chart. Map it to how customers notice, compare, choose and switch. That lens turns a theoretical argument into a commercial one.

Signals, Not Preferences

Use concrete signals to decide, rather than instinct or internal politics.

• Signs a masterbrand will reduce complexity:
• Customers frequently switch within the portfolio or prefer bundles.
• Search terms cluster around the parent name more than the variant.
• Price bands overlap and trade-up is a growth lever.

• Signs sub-brands are justified:
• Distinct promises and proof points, with low cross-shopping.
• Different price corridors and channels, including separate procurement rules.
• Regulatory or safety needs that demand clear separation.

If in doubt, default to the fewest brands necessary to help buyers choose without slowing operations.

Governing The Portfolio

Decisions rarely break; governance does. Without rules, names multiply, claims collide, and teams fund overlapping work. In our experience with scaling organisations, clarity lands fastest when the portfolio is treated as a system with enforceable constraints.

• Role and promise: Write the job each brand does and the customer it serves; remove overlaps.
• Naming and design: Codify what’s shared, what flexes, and what never changes.
• Investment rules: Fund the parent by default; require a distinct economic case to back a sub-brand.
• Exceptions: Review once a year, against data, not in every meeting.

This is how you keep energy on growth, not on rebadging.

Leadership Implications

For leadership teams under quarterly pressure, three moves create clarity without over-correcting.

• Choose a default: masterbrand unless the decision signals say otherwise, then stick to it.
• Align incentives: shared metrics across product, sales and brand so teams win by simplifying, not proliferating.
• Appoint a single owner: one accountable leader for the portfolio, empowered to say “not yet” to new names.

When complexity rises, the winners won’t be the ones who picked a side fastest, but those who matched their brand structure to real demand and kept the rules tight enough to travel.

Sources:

• Masters of branding: the rise of the masterbrand strategy — Harvard Business Review

Further Resources

1. Reframing Strategy: When to Retire Sub-Brands Effectively
2. Rebrand ROI: Building a Commercial Case Without Clear Data
3. Rebranding vs Brand Refresh: Principles for Success

Every organisation hits brand questions it can’t solve alone — if you’d like an outside perspective, we’re here. Let’s talk.

Back to top