Summary

As organisations grow, portfolios sprawl. What was clear becomes a tangle of sub‑brands that split demand and blunt conversion. The strategic move is to retire labels that no longer influence choice and migrate by design. Then effort concentrates, launches move faster, and trust compounds.

→ Watch more videos in this playlist on YouTube

Our Perspective

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

The Hidden Trade-Off

Sub-brands feel like a hedge, but the quiet cost is fragmentation. Demand spreads across labels, teams duplicate effort, and buyers get mixed signals about what stands behind the offer. The commercial effect shows up as lower conversion and heavier discounting just to keep deals moving. It’s not just administrative clutter; it erodes confidence in the master promise.

There’s also hard evidence that complexity drags performance: McKinsey notes that trimming marginal niche offerings in a complex portfolio can reduce costs by up to 7 percent. The point isn’t to slash; it’s to concentrate attention where brand meaning genuinely alters choice.

Decision Impact Test

A sub-brand earns its place only if it changes a buying decision you’d otherwise lose. That means a distinct promise, to a defined audience, proven to alter conversion or pricing power. Cosmetic differences don’t count. If its presence doesn’t shift behaviour, it’s adding fog, not focus.

Tell-tale signs it no longer helps:

• Conversion rises when the masterbrand is foregrounded.
• Price realisation doesn’t improve with the sub-brand.
• You see more cannibalisation than competitive wins.
• Sales cycles lengthen because teams must clarify “who does what.”

Migration By Design

Once a sub-brand fails the decision test, the question moves from “if” to “how.” The principles are simple: sequence migrations around customer risk, and carry the value signal into the masterbrand without dilution. Build visible guarantees into the journey so confidence doesn’t dip as labels change.

In our experience with mid-market organisations, the cleanest migrations pair a single promise with a phased roadmap and visible guarantees. Use these design checks:

• Migration clarity: can a buyer explain the change in one sentence?
• Pathway: what happens to naming, packaging, and entitlements on day one?
• Proof: what reassurance reduces perceived risk for partners and customers?

What Leaders Do

This is leadership work, not housekeeping. Set standards that remove debate and allow timing to be evidence-led. Keep governance tight enough to avoid drift and light enough to move.

Practical moves we recommend:

• Define thresholds for decision impact and cannibalisation before you assess brands.
• Stand up a cross-functional owner for portfolio decisions with authority to sequence.
• Track a small set of leading indicators post-migration: conversion, discounting, referral rate.
• Tie outcomes to commercial goals so simplification earns internal trust.

When portfolios are simplified with intent, demand concentrates, delivery accelerates, and the master promise earns the right to carry more of the load. The longer-term prize is a brand that buyers recognise instantly and choose more easily.

Sources:

• Finding the true cost of portfolio complexity — McKinsey

Further Resources

1. Rebranding: Aligning Strategy for Sustainable Growth
2. The Strategic Role of Brand Strategy in Rebranding
3. Rebranding Strategy: Timing and Customer Perceptions

Brand clarity often begins with the right questions — we’d be glad to explore them with your team. Start the conversation.

Back to top