Why don’t charities use sub-brands more?

Introduction

We all know sub-brands. We see them probably every day in our shopping and engaging with the world. They are extensively used in the commercial sector, but the point of this blog is to ask why they don’t get used in the charity sector more, or don’t get used very well. But first, an explanation of sub-brands.

What are sub-brands?

Sub-brands are brands with a separate identity that operate under the umbrella of a larger parent brand. The separate identity usually makes clear the link to the parent brand by using a similar visual identity. But adds its own identity to appeal to a different audience or distinguish a different product. Costa has Costa Express, which uses the same colour scheme, but the addition of ‘Express’ lets you know it isn’t the same as a normal Costa – it's smaller and quicker and with less choice. Sainsbury’s Local has the same role.

There is, of course, a spectrum of sub-brands, from those that are very close to the parent brand (as in Costa Express) to those that are only minimally part of the parent brand (as in the Lexus brand from Toyota). It's also worth saying that a sub-brand can be a product or a service, and commercial organisations have sub-brands for both.

A sub-brand is typically designed to get the best of both worlds, providing differentiation without being completely separate from the parent brand. The strategy for the sub-brand will set out how close or distant from the parent brand it should be.

Why do organisations use sub-brands?

To target new or different audiences – Nivea Men or Nivea Sun reach different audiences from the traditional parent brand.

To give customers clues or insights as to what to expect from the product – this might be about price (think Premier Inn Pod), or product range (think Tesco Metro) or quality/contents (think Samsung Edge or Coke Zero)

To keep the parent brand profile while broadening the brand footprint. The Apple iPad and Apple iPhone have that role. The new product gets the benefit of the parent brand while broadening the brand family.

How do you know if it’s a separate brand or a sub-brand?

·      The sub-brand should be unmistakably part of the main brand. If you can’t remember whether Alexa is from Amazon or Apple, then something has gone wrong with the sub-brand.

·      It has its own image, visual or values identity. A good sub-brand is clearly part of the parent brand, but also distinct. When we see a Sainsbury’s Local, we know it will be different from the out-of-town supermarket, but we also know it's part of Sainsbury’s.

·      The sub-brand has a life of its own and is durable over time. A good sub-brand isn’t a one-time thing. It is developed and nurtured over time, decades even. The McDonald's Happy Meal has been around for over 30 years!

Some good examples of sub-brands/sub-products

McDonald's and the Big Mac or Happy Meal are good examples of sub-brands. People talk about the Big Mac as a separate entity, but they know it is from McDonald's. The Happy Meal is loved by children worldwide – it provides smaller portions, a toy and a decorated box. Every parent knows what they are buying when they get a Happy Meal, but they also know it is from McDonald's.

Coke, Coke Zero, and Diet Coke are two good examples of the Coke sub-brands. They are also interesting because other Coke brands (eg Appletiser, Sprite, Fanta and Bacardi) are much less clearly part of the Coke brand family. So Coke have a clear brand strategy which makes some of their products sub-brands, and others which are stand-alone brands owned by Coke, but not made into sub-brands.

How do charities use sub-brands well – two examples

Cancer Research UK’s Race for Life and Macmillan’s World’s Greatest Coffee Morning are probably the two best-known charity sub-brands. They are usually marketed as part of the parent brand – CRUK and Macmillan, respectively – but they also have a life of their own. People will say I am doing ‘Race for Life’ this year. Money has been invested in the brand, and they are effective fundraisers.

Could charities use sub-brands more or better?

When I started writing this blog, I thought the issue was that charities didn’t use sub-brands. The comments on LinkedIn and my own reading have made me refine my view. Charities tend not to have a disciplined approach to parent brands and sub-brands. They just don’t use sub-brands very well – often because it isn’t clear what the strategy for the sub-brand is.

Childline is a good example of a badly used sub-brand: if it is a sub-brand at all.  I say this because it is rarely marketed as part of the NSPCC parent brand. If you look at the Childline website (https://www.childline.org.uk/ ), the link to NSPCC is at best downplayed and at worst non-existent.

Equally, I am not clear whether Red Nose Day is the brand in its own right or the sub-brand (of Comic Relief). Sometimes it's called Comic Relief, Red Nose Day and sometimes just Red Nose Day. Sportrelief is even less clearly part of the Comic Relief brand – look at the Twitter description (https://x.com/sportrelief?lang=en ) and it doesn’t mention Comic Relief.

Two of charities biggest marketing challenges are reaching new audiences for fundraising or campaigning, and reaching new audiences for services. Sub-brands can play a real role in doing that. This could be by having a clear sub-brand for major donors, or a sub-brand for younger donors. Equally on the services side, sub-brands can have a role in reaching people with different medical conditions, different social needs, or different demographics.

My conclusion is that sub-brands can be a great tool for strategic marketing – charities should use them more, with better brand strategies to reach new audiences for fundraising, communications and services.