Q: We?re still a relatively small restaurant chain. Ours are mostly in-between a fast food and a fine dining. We attended your one-day Brand Equity seminar to understand how we can give a ?brand architecturing sense? to our four different restaurants.

After the seminar, in one of our weekly executive lunch learning updates, we learned that it was Jollibee that got the franchise for Caffe Ti Amo and launched it last year. So we asked the question you liked asking at the seminar: ?What brand architecturing sense is there in Jollibee?s co-owning and introducing into the market Caffe Ti Amo??

There were differing opinions. One extreme said: ?It just happened. There must have been an opportunity to own it and so Jollibee grabbed it. Why force a logic into something where there?s probably none??

At the other extreme, someone said: ?Jollibee is a very smart player in the restaurant business and that?s why it?s been a market leader for so long. Jollibee must have seen a competitive advantage for its group in Caffe Ti Amo. We just don?t know what so why don?t we ask Marketing Rx??

A: It was May of 2010 when we saw the Caffe Ti Amo coffee and ice cream shop in Greenbelt in Makati. At first it looked like a copycat of the Gellatissimo ice cream and coffee shop from Australia (not Italy) first put up in Cebu and later on in the upscale Greenbelt 5. Turns out that Caffe Ti Amo is from Korea (not Italy) and Jollibee was awarded the master franchise. Aside from that, we don?t have the pertinent facts for this case and so we were at first reluctant to answer. But we were reminded that we?ve had many occasions when we were asked this kind of question and we answered with ?deconstructed? facts. In the seminar you attended and in most of my other seminars, I?ve used ?deconstruction? as a way of assembling the likely facts of a case. Deconstruction is the technique that archeologists use to infer from ?artifacts? like a tooth and bone fragments what, for example, an entire dinosaur looks like.

So let?s attempt a deconstructing for this case out of its ?artifacts.? These would include what?s known about Jollibee and its other resto brands as found in website profiles of those brands, available press releases and feature newspaper articles on them, ocular visits on those restaurants, and the like.

First, what are the brands? There?s Jollibee, a burger and chicken resto and there?s Chow King, a Chinese fast-food store. Then, there?s Greenwich, a pizza and pasta fast food, and there?s Red Ribbon, a bakeshop and restaurant. There?s also Manong Pepe, a ?carinderia?- type store and Mang Inasal, a supposedly low-end chicken restaurant and the latest acquisition right before Caffe Ti Amo. There used to be Deli France but this was sold, and several years ago, there was Mary?s, an a la Kenny Rogers roast chicken store that closed after a year or so. So right now, the brand portfolio has a total of seven brands.

We now proceed to your question: ?What?s the brand architecturing logic of this portfolio?? The brand architecturing logic is in its strategic purpose or pair of purposes. One particular pair that the brand equity seminar highlighted was the two purposes of gaining ?synergy? and lending ?clarity? to the product offerings in your several brands. Your brand architecturing strategy choice here is between ?the House-of-Brands? (HoB) strategy and ?the Branded-House? (BH) strategy.

From the artifacts of this case, it looks like it?s the logic of the HoB architecturing strategy that fits this Caffe Ti Amo case. (Caffe Ti Amo, is actually a Korean franchise.) Let?s study the elements of this fit.

When your brand architecturing is for ?synergy and clarity,? you have to relate to each other as well as to differentiate from each other the brands in the portfolio. Then you have to show how the different brands support each other, as well as reinforce the flagship brand where they all belong. In this case of Caffe Ti Amo and Jollibee and the other five brands, it?s clear what that relationship was. All the brands were restaurant brands just as the parent brand, Jollibee, is a restaurant.

As a HoB architecturing strategy, it?s quite clear how each brand is after an eating-out market segment with its distinctive positioning. Because of this, Jollibee as the flagship brand did not have to be stretched beyond its own positioning.

We also should consider here Jollibee?s global intention. Under a HoB architecturing strategy, it?s easier relative to the BH strategy for Jollibee to earn a global business footprint. Earlier in its international ventures, Jollibee found out that its flagship brand was not always meaningful in other countries including the US, Middle East, Indonesia and even China. So in China, it changed from a BH strategy to a HoB. For example, in Shanghai it came in as Yonghe King, as Hong Zhuang Yuan in Beijing, as San Pin Wang noodle resto in Nanning, and as Liuzhou in Southern China.

So there?s the answer you?re after. But please remember the underlying principle of the answer. That?s being careful and sensitive to the most pertinent purpose or pair of purposes of the brand architecturing task. For this case, we zeroed in on architecturing for the synergy and clarity pair of purposes. You have to note that there are two other purpose pairs. These are:

(1) architecturing for creating powerful brands and for allocating brand-building resources, and
(2) architecturing to leverage brand equity and to provide a platform for future growth.

As I?ve mentioned during my brand equity seminar, you can get the details on these architecturing purposes in David Aaker?s four books: (1) ?Brand Portfolio Strategy,? (2) ?Brand Leadership,? (3) ?Building Strong Brands? and (4) ?Managing Brand Equity.?

Keep your questions coming. Send them to us at MarketingRx@pldtDSL.net or drnedmarketingrx@gmail.com. God bless!