The Risks of Sub-Branding: Covent Garden's Big & Bold

子品牌的風險：以Covent Garden's Big & Bold為例

原文網址: Link

摘要： 本篇文章以Covent Garden's Big & Bold說明企業在發展子品牌時，會忽略其對原品牌造成的風險。

「子品牌」是一個棘手的領域。我在超級市場看到了一個不要去做子品牌的例子：我喜歡的品牌之一，Covent Garden Soup(左圖二)，推出的一款新的濃湯(左圖一)。

一個子品牌能使一項新產品擁有較多自己的個性，通常它的目標是針對新的使用者、場合或是價格。子品牌應該描述的是一個「品牌故事的新章節」。而「母品牌」與「子品牌」的結合最好能成為一個你能記住的單一「複合品牌」：像是百家德調酒，吉列刮鬍刀，雀巢金牌典藏咖啡…等。 

現在來看Covent Garden's Big & Bold的例子。

1. 新故事，還是新篇章？

這看起來像是個全新的品牌。它是一個新故事，而非一個故事的新篇章。這件事發生在我的朋友Sarah，一個Covent Garden的忠實顧客的身上，當我們在Covent Garden商品架旁邊，我指著Big & Bold的包裝給她看時，她說：「天啊，這看起來好不像這個品牌的產品！」

假設擁有更豐富內餡的濃湯產品對Covent Garden是一個好點子，但這感覺上並沒有太大的改變。也就是說新產品和原本核心產品有區別，卻不是很明顯，然而Big & Bold在設計和包裝形式上風格迥異。(杯裝而非原本的盒裝)

關於範圍建構，這是一個很好的例子，包括整體視覺設計，而不只是品牌名稱的大小及所放置的位置。Covent Garden當然還是有出現在包裝上，只是你沒有看到它。 

2. 這種做法的風險

第一個風險是顧客不知道這是　Covent Garden的新產品，所以他們不會想去嘗試。第二個風險是Big & Bold和原先品牌有著不同調性、不同風格和不同的視覺設計，所以任何為它而做的行銷努力會冒著分割品牌形象的風險。

3. 這種做法的優勢

這個做法的好處是Big & Bold Soups從商品架上脫穎而出，它們也很明顯的與濃湯核心產品範圍不相同。但因為很多連結Covent Garden的視覺線索已經被丟棄，使得它不再像是Covent Garden的產品了。

簡單來說，子品牌是關於平衡品牌的一致性。如果你致力於此，檢查看看是否取得對的權衡，並且傳達給消費者的是品牌故事的新篇章而不是全新的故事。 

"Sub-branding" is a really tricky area. I saw an example of how not to do it in the supermarket today: a new chunky soup (on top) from one of my fave brands, Covent Garden Soup (below).

A sub-brand allows a new product to have a bit more of its own personality, often linked to targeting a new user, occasion or price point. Done well, the sub-brand should tell a "new chapter of the brand story". And the combination of "parent brand" and "sub-brand" should ideally become a single "composite" brand you can remember: Bacardi Breezer, Gillette Sensor, Nescafe Gold Blend etc.

Let's now look at Covent Garden's Big and Bold.

1. Brand new story, not a new chapter

This looks like a new brand altogether. Its a new story, not a new chapter of the same story. This was brought to life by my friend Sarah, a loyal Covent Garden buyer, who was at the same shelf. When I pointed out the Big and Bold packs she said: "Oh, it looks like posh own label that's been put on the wrong shelf." Ow.

Now, let's assume its a good idea for Covent Garden to have a chunkier soup. But this feels like a small change, not a big one. Which would suggest some difference vs. the core range, but not a lot. But Big and Bold has a whole new graphic style and a new pack format (tub not carton).

This is a good example of how range architecture is about the whole visual design, not just the size and position of the brand name. Sure Covent Garden is there on the pack. But you just don't see it. 

2. Risks with this approach

The first risk is that people won't know its the new soup from Covent Garden, and so won't try it. The second risk is that any marketing effort for Big and Bold will risk fragmenting the brand's image, as it will have a different tone, style and visual design.

3. Advantages of this approach

The upside of this approach is that the Big and Bold soups stand out on shelf. They also are clearly different from the core soup range. But so many visual brand cues have been thrown away that it no longer feels like Covent Garden.

Net, sub-branding is about balancing brand consistency with ease of navigation. If you work on this, check you get the balance right and tell a new chapter of your brand story, not a new story altogether.