Corporate Reputation and Single vs. Multiple Brands

Reputation Views Differ from Single- to Multiple-Brand Companies: Over 80% of major companies believe enhancing their corporate reputation is vital, but strategies vary considerably depending on whether firms are a “house of brands” or a “branded house,” says a study released July 2012 by Weber Shandwick and KRC Research.

Polling 575 executives worldwide, 92% of the respondents from “single-brand” firms agreed that augmenting their reputation at the corporate level matched the importance of enhancing the standing of their goods.

That figure fell to 75% among their peers working for players operating a “house of brands” model, examples of which include Kimberly-Clark, Procter & Gamble and Unilever. Other findings include:

• 87% of businesses from single-brand companies actively promote and communicate the reputation of their company, as opposed to 80% from the multiple-brand companies.

• 61% of respondents from firms selling products under one name would rather see news showing they were listed in “most admired” rankings than for strong share-price forecasts. This figure fell to 49% among the multiple brands.

• The main benefits of corporate branding for its adherents include the “halo effect” it has on their goods (65%); serving consumer interests (55%); and increasing transparency (50%).

• 46.5% believed it was advantageous to unite all their products with a common voice; 43.5% perceived this approach as being “more efficient” from a marketing perspective.

Source: Weber Shandwick/KRC Research

Follow Scott Van Camp: @svancamp01