Groups & parts

A conversation a few days ago prompted thoughts about groups - parent companies with a portfolio of AEC firms. Many of these groups keep their legacy brands in the forefront, but others are intent on leveraging their portfolio and building a new brand around it. So how does this work? How do you balance the needs of the group - creating a new and coherent identity - with the needs of its business units? Ideally, the group brand will surpass its legacy brands, making the transition worthwhile, so the group's initial message should stress leverage, synergy, added value, and new horizons. There's also an opportunity to strike a new tone and depict a reality that's deliberately at odds with perceived limits of the legacy brands that are being supplanted: "That was then, this is now." OK, you can do this, but you still have to enable the business units to define themselves in their different markets. You have to help them build on their legacy without reverting to it. This means inculcating a sense of the group across every unit while celebrating each one's remarkable DNA. So its an internal issue as well as an external one - people need to feel they're part of something new and significantly better, and be able to convey that difference to others. Relevant to this is WPP's Martin Sorrell, whose annual reports often address the group vs. parts conundrum. WPP has kept its brands, but collocated them - synergy and leverage are the name of the game. It will be interesting to see where this leads. Does it resolve Sorrell's dilemma or is it a step closer to the day when WPP is the only name on the door?