What Is Brand Architecture?

Brand architecture is the strategic framework that defines how a company organizes and relates its brands, products, and SKUs to each other and to the parent company. For CPG brands, it shapes what consumers see on shelf: a single unified brand, a collection of independent brands, or something in between. Research published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science shows that the chosen architecture model measurably affects stock returns and firm risk, making it a high‑impact strategic decision.

Why Brand Architecture Matters for CPG Brands

For large CPG companies (e.g., Procter & Gamble, Unilever, AB InBev), brand architecture is about managing a broad portfolio of brands across categories, occasions, and price tiers. It defines:

• How visible the corporate parent is.
• How equity flows between parent and sub‑brands.
• How resources are allocated and brands are rationalized, especially in M&A and roll‑up scenarios.

For mid‑market and emerging CPG brands, architecture is more granular: what role does each product and SKU play? A 12 oz can, 20 oz bottle, and 2‑liter of the same beverage each serve distinct need states, shelf roles, and price points. Understanding these roles at the product level determines whether your lineup drives incremental growth or just cannibalizes itself.

The Three Core Brand Architecture Models

1. Branded House

A single master brand leads all products and services. Every offering uses the same or closely related name, creating a unified experience.

• Example (non‑CPG): Google Maps, Google Sheets, Google Drive, Google Photos all lead with “Google,” sharing and reinforcing the same brand equity.
• Example (CPG): Tillamook uses one brand across cheese, ice cream, yogurt, and butter, all anchored in the same promise: quality dairy from Tillamook County.

Best when: Products share a common brand promise, quality standard, or category logic that makes the connection intuitive. For most emerging CPG brands, this is the default because it concentrates limited marketing resources into one brand.

2. House of Brands

The parent company owns multiple independent brands, each with its own identity, positioning, and target. The corporate parent is mostly invisible to consumers.

• Example: Procter & Gamble with Tide, Gillette, Pampers, Crest. P&G appears subtly (often on the back of pack), but each brand stands alone.
• Example: AB InBev with Stella Artois, Budweiser, Corona, Goose Island, etc.—each with distinct positioning and audiences.

Best when: Brands target genuinely different segments, price tiers, or occasions where a single brand would confuse or dilute positioning. This model is resource‑intensive and suited to large, well‑capitalized companies.

3. Endorsed Brand

Individual brands have distinct identities but carry a visible endorsement from the parent, borrowing trust while maintaining their own positioning.

• Example (non‑CPG): Marriott International with The Ritz‑Carlton, W Hotels, Courtyard, Fairfield Inn, all endorsed via the Marriott name or Marriott Bonvoy.
• Example (CPG): Nestlé endorses select product brands to signal quality and corporate backing.

Best when: Sub‑brands serve distinct markets yet benefit from the parent’s credibility. Common in hospitality and financial services, and increasingly used in CPG as portfolios grow via acquisition.

Model Comparison

Brand Architecture for Emerging CPG Brands

For brands under roughly $25M in annual revenue, a branded house is almost always the right choice. You lack the resources to build multiple independent brands, so focus on:

1. Line extensions (not new brands).
2. SKU portfolio strategy (clear roles for every SKU).

Line Extensions Over New Brands

Grow efficiently by extending your existing brand:

• New flavors
• New pack sizes
• New formats

All under the same parent brand, so each extension benefits from existing brand equity and awareness. Consumers who already trust your core product are far more likely to try a new flavor or format from you than from a new, unknown brand.

When to consider a new brand: Only when your current brand cannot credibly stretch into the new space. A common case is a premium, organic brand eyeing a value‑tier, conventional product. Using the same premium brand on a cheaper, non‑premium product confuses consumers and dilutes your positioning. In that narrow scenario, a separate value brand may be justified—but it should remain the exception.