What The Clintons Teach Us About Brand Architecture.

Did foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation influence Hillary Clinton’s State Department and were those donations intentionally concealed to protect Hillary?

We don’t know.

All we know for certain is that this episode teaches us a lot about brand architecture.

Yes, brand architecture.

A brand is the perception of a company, product or service.

Brand architecture refers to a hierarchy of brands in a family. How do the perceptions relate to one another, or do they even relate at all?

The Clinton family includes several different “products” (Bill, Hillary, Chelsea and the Foundation). Like most families, the Clintons are master branded; the Clinton name is attached to every product within the family. Technically each Clinton “product” is a sub-brand, meaning each has their own distinct identity but all relate to the parent. When it comes to sub-brands customers usually see one of the two brands as stronger and they default to it. In this case the parent, Clinton, is the strongest brand.

Because of this structure the actions of one entity (Clinton Foundation) impacts the perception people have of a separate entity within the family (Hillary Clinton). Hillary may claim total independence from the Foundation but the master brand tells the public otherwise. They’re both named Clinton. They must be connected.

The rise and potential fall of Hillary teaches us a great deal about master branding, its promises and pitfalls, and brand architecture in general.

1. Master branding signals a relationship.

The questions swirling around Hillary today are a direct result of master branding. The actions of the Clinton Foundation reflect poorly on Hillary because they both share the Clinton name. Hillary may view this as unfair. It’s not. Master branded products are related by design.

The reason companies pursue a master brand strategy is inform customers that otherwise independent products share the same parent. If you have a favorable perception of the parent you may buy all their products. Master branding is a deliberate attempt to leverage your existing affinity.

Hillary’s connection to the Clinton name has benefited her throughout her career. At this moment it’s a detriment. Just like a product bearing the Sony name, Hillary has to live within the master branded family she’s part of. She can’t use the name to her benefit while simultaneously claiming independence. That’s not the way master branding — or families — works.

2. Master branding works.

Companies master brand because it works. Once a company name is recognizable it can be used to lift other products up. Rather than invest in teaching customers a new name for a new product, companies often take the path of least resistance and use their already recognizable name instead. This tethers the perception of the parent to the child. “I know Samsung makes good TVs; they probably make good dishwashers.” If the parent is a strong brand the child is likely to have some measure of success by default.

The Clintons are proof of this. Bill imbued the Clinton name with value and it lifted Hillary, Chelsea and eventually the Clinton Foundation. These entities all have value because the Clinton name has value. Could they have achieved the same results independently and on merit alone? We’ll never know. What we assume is that each member of the family achieved the results they did in large part because of the Clinton name. Master branding works.

3. Master branding has limits.

It’s widely acknowledged that Hillary is no Bill, politically. And let’s go way out on a limb and assume Chelsea will never be president of the United States. There are limits to what name alone will allow Clintons now and the in the future to achieve.

Though master branding lifts average products up, it does so only to a point. Master branded products still have to comport with the perception people have of the parent for them to succeed long-term. A product that falls short of the parent brand will fail, and its failure can adversely impact the parent. In that way a product can be limited by the expectations set by the master brand. The Apple Watch by any other name would be hailed as a groundbreaking product. Unless it lives up to the Apple name it will be considered a dud. Hillary has been struggling to live up the Clinton political acumen expectation set by Bill for much of her career.

Master branding also weakens over time. Chelsea’s child is further from the brand patriarch and therefore the association with Bill will be weaker. The more “average” Clintons in the public life, the more the name will be associated with average and less with the original perception of Bill. As the family grows the power of the name is diluted. This is true with companies and product line extension. With every successive sub-brand beer launch Budweiser becomes weaker and weaker. Younger beer drinkers don’t see Budweiser, Bud Light, Bud Light Platinum and Budweiser Black Crown as separate products. They see them as a family of below average products, on the shelf not because of quality but because of the Budweiser name. A new Budweiser beer doesn’t revitalize the aging perception, it weakens it further.

Two generations from now the next Clinton in politics won’t be able cash the Clinton name in for a presidential run. By then it will have been greatly diluted and lacking much of its original punch.

There are limits to the lift a master brand can provide and the value of a master brand name is not limitless.

4. Master branding is limiting.

Brands are perceptions of companies, products or services. A master brand strategy will almost always be limited to the perception of the original product.

We filed away Bill Clinton in our minds as a politician, so the Clinton name only has equity in political matters. A Clinton branded product is limited to a political life just as KitchenAid products are limited to your kitchen.

Bill Clinton plays the saxophone, so a Clinton Foundation to support music in schools makes sense. But a Clinton Record label doesn’t comport with our perception of Bill. He could no doubt fund it, but the public wouldn’t take the effort seriously. This explains some of skepticism towards the Clinton Foundation. Are charitable grants something the Clintons actually do uniquely well or is this just a personal enrichment scheme?

A master brand strategy, or for that matter branding in general, limits companies, products and services to just one concept in the mind. Once a brand is firmly established it’s difficult to make that singular perception mean something else.

What is Google? Search.

What is Starbucks? Coffee.

That Google does many other things besides search (Though by their own admission they do none of these other things really, really well.) doesn’t change our perception. They do search. That Starbucks dropped coffee from their name doesn’t change our perception of them. They do coffee.

The Clintons do politics. That is the only category of product the name has equity for. Sorry, future Clintons.

5. Perceptions are strongest when singular.

Effective brand building starts with one question: What concept do we want to own in the mind?

We live in a noisy world and won’t remember hundreds of details about the thousands of products we encounter. We strip products down to simple, singular concepts and file them away in our brains as brands.

Master branded products are frequently at a disadvantage against stand alone brands because the master branded product is trying to own a concept and an association with another product. It’s an extra layer of noise a stand alone product doesn’t have to deal with.

A stand alone product is built to own just one concept in your mind. A master branded product is built to own several. Advantage: stand alone.

Hillary the presidential candidate is trying claim ownership to a share of your mind. She has a message and is going to repeat it on the pulpit over and over and over in an attempt to make it stick. But that message will never stand alone because the Clinton name already has a share of your mind. She’s not just battling political foes for your mental space, she’s battling her own family name.

6. The best way to predict the future is to create it.

The job of a brand builder is to look into the future to identify the space in customers’ minds to be claimed. The manager of a brand family must look even farther into the future to make sure the perceptions they create today don’t conflict with the perceptions they want to create tomorrow.

The Clinton Foundation foreign cash grab may derail Hillary’s run for president. If the Clintons feel that Hillary’s ambition is more important than the charitable work of the Foundation then the launch of the Foundation will be considered by them to have been misbegotten.

When companies launch new master branded products (e.g. Clinton Foundation) a better brander must explore the long-term impacts. Will this product impact our ability to achieve a long-term goal?

Brand architecture should be dictated only by this long-term thinking. If a company sees conflict in the future as a result of master branding they can become a house of brands. Or they can deliberately position the parent to include the perception they want to create in the future.

Steve Jobs was an adept brand manager. He intentionally positioned Apple not as a software or hardware company, but as a company that makes products to empower people to change the world for the better. Larry and Sergey (and Eric) on the other hand took the path of least resistance and built Google around a master brand that means one thing: search. Apple as a master brand became a synonym for “amazing product” while new Google products will always compete with the search perception. The future belongs to those who intentionally build it.

Sadly, most companies pursue short-term profit and ego over long-term positioning. The allure of easy money with a master brand strategy is too strong and advancing your own name recognition by taking credit for products you’ve worked long and hard to make is great food for egos.

The Clintons launched Bill’s foundation as a Clinton sub-brand. The easy money flowed and egos grew. The money now impacts the Clintons’ next big product launch. It’s a decision a better brander would have prevented. Hillary’s political future may have depended on it.