We often ask our clients whether or not their church/organization has a house of brands or a branded house. What's the difference?

We often ask our clients whether or not their church/organization has a house of brands or a branded house.

What's the difference?

One great example is Procter & Gamble vs. Disney. Procter & Gamble is a house of brands -- none of its sub-brands look like they belong to the same family or story. Procter & Gamble is not trying to tell a consistent story from one sub-brand to the next because its diverse products are not always trying to reach the same audience.

Now consider Disney. Disney is a (very strongly) branded house. When you see a sub-brand of Disney, you know right away what family and story it belongs to. Disney wants people to associate all of its sub-brands with the overall Disney experience because they are trying to tell a very consistent story no matter what park, store, product or movie you are experiencing.

Unless a church/organization is trying to communicate multiple stories to varied and different audiences, we advise them to become a branded house. 

Like a Good Book? (A Branded House Analogy)

A great analogy that I've heard is that your sub-brands are all chapters from the same book. You cannot read a book where each chapter is written in different languages, with different characters and plots. 

Your "book" is your church's main brand. So what's the big overarching story you are communicating to people? Your "chapters" are the sub-brands. So how do they reinforce and support the story you are telling? Do they reinforce the story you are telling? Or, do they distract from the story you are telling and create confusion? 

A well-written "book" with "chapters" that support and work well together is a congruently branded house that can have a more dramatic impact on and with your readers (in this analogy!).

Happy reading! Er, I mean, happy branding!