Brand architecture strategy and firm value: how leveraging, separating, and distancing the corporate brand affects risk and returns

Despite evidence suggesting a growing incidence of brand architecture strategies beyond the branded house (e.g., Boeing and IBM) and house-of-brands (e.g., P&G with Tide and Cheer), and recognition that in practice these strategies are very different, there is still a need for research on how financial markets value the full range of brand architecture strategies pursued by firms. We replicate and extend Rao et al.’s (Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 126-141, 2004) investigation of brand portfolio strategy and firm performance by (1) adding sub-branding and endorsed branding architectures, (2) clarifying the “mixed” architecture to constitute a BH-HOB hybrid and remove sub- and endorsed branding variants, and (3) quantifying the impact of a company’s brand architecture strategy on stock risk in addition to returns. To explore the risk profiles of these five different strategies, we offer a brand-relevant conceptualization of the sources of idiosyncratic risk that may be exacerbated or controlled through brand architecture strategy: brand reputation risk, brand dilution risk, brand cannibalization risk, and brand stretch risk. We demonstrate superior results in terms of model performance using the expanded five-part architecture categorization and conclude with implications for practice. Our results show that risk/return tradeoffs for sub-branding, endorsed branding, and the BH-HOB hybrid differ significantly from what common wisdom suggests.