The semantic branding

nikevictoryspike

One of the most boring topics in branding is the brand architecture.

Name, corporate branding, product branding ... sub-products, services, areas of the company ... And the list could continue ad infinitum.

Usually, the discussion about the best brand architecture is base in the model that can be followed:

Monolithic (single brand... Webjam ...)
Monolithic modified (the same symbol, different verbal expressions ... GE, GE Electronics, GE Financial Services ...)
Sub-brands (corporate and product brands... Microsoft ...)
Endorsed brands (brands with corporate brand signature, each with specific attributes... Marriot ...)
Hybrids (a discrete number of independent brands ... Disney)
Corporate invisible (Inditex ... Only commercial brands... Zara, Stradivarius ,...)

No cases tends to be a pure case ... Like Nike:

Nike
Nike + names
Vapor, NikeGolf (Change the visual expression), SQ
Colemann, Hurley, Converse: Brands ranging specific audiences
Umbro: Company owned by Nike

I imagine that the system has been designed properly, however I have some questions:

Why is there a gender brand (NikeWoman)?
Why are there so many names? If you see soccer shoes, do you need to see that they belong to NikeSoccer?
Why do we need to see some sort of internal brands (Store, ID Lab ...)? If I'm going to a Nike store, not I realize that it is "a Nike store?
Who buys a Vapor watch? I know people who bought a Nike Watch

I think (actually I am convinced) that the first point to define a proper brand architecture is that it responds to especific tribes/audiences and not the way business is organized ... This looks like common sense, however, it's usually not common practice.

The brand architecture must help key audiences to reduce their uncertainty, to create particular experiences ... Who cares how a company is organized when you're shopping for one of their products?

... And besides, a boring topic to write ... But not to make comments!

Comments

written on 22-Aug-2008

Phailanx [http://www.phailanx.co.uk] says:

Great post! ...

Indeed... why is there a seperate brand for women? Despite Nike seems to cater for specific products 9and being one of the laregst brands in the world!), it makes me wonder if when this architecture was built, was it originally designed for offline? While looking at the above I can see multiple usability issues arising from a portal site (which I can only assume the nike homepage is supposed to be). I.e. If I'm a woman that needs new soccer/football boots, where do I go... Nike Women, Nike Soccer or Nike Sportsware? It creates ambiguity to the user if brand archtecture is not robust and scalable, and is not coherent online and offline.

Interesting breakdown of the brands Cris, I like the way that Disney is a cross between a few... (and I love the word hybrid... especially to describe a brand )
How do you see the crossover of brand approaches working? / Do they work effectively to crossover? i.e. Disney has monolithic modified (I think based on your description) and hybrid, possibly even sub brands in places.... Does this work for the overarching brand/aim?
written on 22-Aug-2008

Phailanx [http://www.phailanx.co.uk] says:

P.S. I didn't know that Nike owned Converse and Umbro! Although to try and get myself retribution of my lacking Nike knowledge, I did know that they recently sold Bauer...
written on 22-Aug-2008

cristian.saracco [http://www.webjam.com/brand30] says:

Yep!... That's the mess... If you go to the Internet world, you may also seethis... E.g.: the differences between Lycos (Does it still exist?) with a brand-mess architecture, Terra with a differentation between channels and services (its key audiences do not realise it) and Yahoo (simple, right to the point... so smart!)

So I presume that Nike football is for American Football which produce also another kind of confussion out of US.

As I mentioned in the post... No formulas for this.... Meaning, brand architecture (in the real world... this includes online world.... which is also real) are 70% of x, 20% of y and 10% of z... Great brand architectures are the ones that are driven by audiences... You create as many brands as your audiences (external ones) needs... no more, no less!

And this works for all brands... Probably, because it's a question of common sense... and driven by people needs and desires... doesn't matter how global/big/deep or whatever your brand is.

Also there is a question of investment... the more brands you have/manage, the more money you need!

And yes... Nike owns those brands/companys (Umbro a minor participation... the rest, 100%)... Also, they own another brand (I don't remember the name) that it's not in their portal... One of eco-shoes for anti-Nike people... True!

Adidas are out of this discussion, specifically the Marcus' new ones!
written on 22-Aug-2008

SianMeades [http://www.poppycockney.com/] says:

NikeWomen is very simple but very effective branding. It shouldn't be such an obvious answer, but it appeals to women. The same with NikeSoccer etc. You're more likely to buy a brand if you can identify with it. And as simple as this is, it works.

But what do I know? I never wear trainers....And Nike don't make NikeStiletto.
written on 22-Aug-2008

cristian.saracco says:

neither NikeCockies

Thanks for the comment!... The question is... Why don't they have NikeMen, NikeKids, NikeGays...?
written on 22-Aug-2008

Phailanx [http://www.phailanx.co.uk] says:

I agree. If they choose the route of Nike Women, the architecture should be as Cris mentioned. Or, go down the route or spereating sports/services - then sub dividing accordingly... Mixing the two makes it very confusing...
written on 22-Aug-2008

SianMeades [http://www.poppycockney.com/] says:

maybe soon there will be NikeWomenSoccer .... just to be PC...
written on 22-Aug-2008

Phailanx [http://www.phailanx.co.uk] says:

Were you listening to what we said!? You just like the Nikewomen brand don't you?
written on 22-Aug-2008

SianMeades [http://www.poppycockney.com/] says:

:-) I wasn't listening very well, clearly.
written on 22-Aug-2008

Lupa [http://www.luciabahia.canalblog.com] says:

Very interesting post Cris!!! and totally agree with you... I´ll keep on reading... chuik!
written on 22-Aug-2008

cristian.saracco says:

Thanks for the comments!...

BTW, the NikeWomenSoccer sounds like a Microsoft creation ... Ms VistaHomePremiumPlus...
written on 09-Sep-2008

russell.volckmann says:

More brand Nike blogstuff...

Nike + Human Race 10k: More race, less Nike please
http://www.landor.com/index.cfm?do=thinking.blogs_olympics&post_id=16711

Name:
Email (will not be published):
Website URL:
Comment:
Subscribe to comments?
Security code:

The semantic blog » Strategically boring | The Nike example

Comments

Leave a Comment