Building the right house: a “branded house” vs. a “house of brands”

When considering brand structures such as the “branded house” model vs. a “house of brands” construct, most automatically think of the consumer space. Through heavy’s work with both higher ed and consumer brands, we know that like many things, the two spaces are deeply intertwined.

A branded house is an overarching brand that houses a line of similar offerings under a singular name. Apple is a very well-known consumer example, boasting the iPhone, iPad, and iPod as products in its ranks. Kraft is another, housing everything from mac’n’cheese, condiments and coolwhip. Creating a branded house allows you to market multiple offerings without having to build out brand recognition for each individual one. It also allows you to increase your market share and reach new demographics of consumers. 

A house of brands is different from a branded house because it separates the overarching brand from the individual ones below it. Through this type of brand architecture, you can market unlike and even competing offerings under the same roof. In the consumer space, Proctor and Gamble is a good example of this. While many consumers know of Tide, Oral-B, Luvs, and Bounty, they wouldn’t necessarily associate them. 

Much like a brand with multiple offerings, universities are a hierarchy of departments that each have their own complex communication needs and specific audiences – ranging from enticing donors through alumni relations, promoting sports teams to speaking on behalf of one of their individual colleges. 

Many times, schools are best served by having a singular core brand aka a “common language” recognizable across the institution, while allowing the brand to bend and flex through “regional dialects” to accommodate for diverse audiences they’re trying to reach. This is especially helpful for lesser known schools and colleges within the university. As the university’s reach and prestige increase over time, the success trickles down across the board ensuring all boats rise with the tide. Due to this, a branded house structure is what you’ll most commonly find in higher ed. 

There are some exceptions, however, such as when a college or sports team underneath a university is a stand alone household name. Take The Wharton School, for example. University of Penn’s prestigious business school is the world’s oldest business school and has enough brand equity on its own. Because of this, Wharton would be able to create a unique look and feel that sets them apart from the university branding. On the other hand, if they did decide to go with a branded house, the other colleges within UPenn could benefit from the school’s prestige. 

Another example of universities taking a house of brands approach is a university system such as the University of Wisconsin, which comprises over 13 universities across 26 campuses. While UW is the central brand, they give a lot of leeway to the universities within their system to explore their own branding. One of the biggest benefits to a house of brands is that if one school or program experiences negative public sentiment within a system, it may remain isolated, without tarnishing the reputation of the others. 

While universities can weigh the pros and cons of each approach before deciding which would better suit them, ultimately most conclude that they fare better with a branded house approach. Regardless of which direction they choose, universities should focus on building a solid foundation. Even established universities can benefit from putting in the research to ensure their current branding across the institution is best serving their core values, culture and audience.