Video
Using Brand as a Strategic Compass for Organisational Change
Make brand the guide for organisational change to drive clarity and faster execution. Align decisions, cut low‑impact work, and build trust.
Summary
Most brands reach a point where growth spawns too many names and customers hesitate. It strains clarity, confidence and control. Meaning emerges when leaders face the facts, define roles, and simplify around real buying moments. From there, the portfolio aligns, budgets focus, and momentum returns.
Watch The Video
In this video, Preetum Mistry (CEO & Managing Partner) explores when sub-brands create confusion — and when simplification becomes unavoidable.Our Perspective
What this means for leaders navigating growth, change or transformation in their organisation.
The Hidden Cost
When an organisation accumulates sub-brands, the immediate effect is reach; the hidden effect is friction. Every extra name adds a decision, a handover, a delay. Customers hesitate at the point of choice. Internally, leaders spread finite time and budgets across competing signals that rarely add up to a stronger whole.
The problem isn’t only aesthetic; it’s economic. Global Banking & Finance Review reports that 71% of companies see customer confusion as the most damaging consequence of an inconsistent brand, which is exactly what proliferating names tend to create. Confusion drags on sales velocity, cross-sell, and trust—three levers that underpin commercial performance.
Simplicity As Strategy
Brand simplicity isn’t a creative preference; it’s a route to value. Fewer, clearer promises make it easier to price, to cross-sell, and to hold the line in negotiations. It also reduces duplication of effort, channels investment into fewer signals, and builds recognition faster.
There’s a customer dividend, too. Humach notes that close to two-thirds of consumers are willing to pay more for simpler experiences, and a similar share are more likely to recommend brands that are easier to use. That edge compounds across journeys—especially where buyers need to navigate a portfolio.
Where To Draw Lines
Most organisations we work with reach a tipping point when multiple names start competing for the same buyer. The remedy isn’t a bonfire of brands; it’s a clear, principled architecture that assigns roles and sets thresholds for naming.
Consider three decision gates:
- Role clarity: Does the offer need its own promise, or can the parent carry it?
- Market truth: Will a new name reduce or increase buyer effort at the point of choice?
- Investment reality: Can you fund distinct memory structures over time, not just at launch?
Sequencing The Shift
Simplification works best when it’s sequenced around real moments that matter, not org charts.
Practical moves:
- Map the buying journeys where customers currently stall, then consolidate around those choke points first.
- Define one flagship promise and align extensions to it with sharp descriptors, not new names.
- Merge or retire brands with overlapping audiences, and reassign equity through clear migration paths and service improvements.
Leadership Consequences
A disciplined architecture becomes a lever for growth. It concentrates demand, improves return on investment, and makes every launch borrow less and contribute more. It also sharpens accountability: teams build depth behind fewer promises rather than chasing breadth.
The deeper point is strategic. Simplification isn’t a retreat; it’s focus. In markets that reward clarity and speed, fewer names, stronger signals, and tighter promises create a platform that scales as complexity rises.
Sources:
- Simplified CX Is Worth $86B. Are You Getting Your Share? — Humach
- Customer Trends — Global Banking & Finance Review
Further Resources
Curious how this applies in your market? We’re speaking with leaders across industries every week. Let’s talk.
Video
Rebranding