The Great Divide: Brand Architecture vs. Information Architecture

Why you need both and where to draw the line.

In today’s digitally-driven B2B marketing environment, with easy access to information and all sorts of opinions, companies no longer control exactly where or when customers or prospects encounter their brand. And with over 74% of B2B buyers conducting the majority of their research online, it’s safe to say that all B2B brands are digital brands (whether they like it or not).

We Need a New Website!

It’s no surprise then that a company’s website – the hub of its digital brand – is usually the most urgent and acute pain point for B2B marketers. For companies going through a rebranding initiative, the website often serves as the first real application of the new verbal and visual platform. While this can provide an agile testing ground for the strength and flexibility of the brand, it can also unearth some important brand gaps.

For example, one increasingly gray area for B2B marketers in this evolving landscape is where to draw the line between how a brand organizes its products, services and offerings (brand architecture) and how the website’s information is organized (information architecture).

It’s easy to see where the confusion comes from.

Since both are customer facing, shouldn’t a website’s information architecture reflect how the brand organizes its products and services, i.e., the brand architecture, or vice versa?

If there is a similar goal of organization, why do it twice?

Too often, companies don’t, focusing instead on one and not the other. This is especially apparent when a company jumps into website design immediately following a rebranding without having properly addressed brand architecture. The result is a lack of consensus, or even understanding, of the offerings associated with brands and sub-brands in a company’s portfolio.

While brand and information architecture are related, they are not substitutes for each other. Here’s why.

What is Brand Architecture?

Brand architecture is the structure of brands and sub-brands within an organizational entity. It defines the hierarchy, relationships, and differentiation among brands in a portfolio.

The goal of brand architecture is to get to the ideal portfolio organization that best supports the business strategy and brand goals. For example, empowering cross-selling or elevating fast-growth, high potential products and services.

A good brand architecture helps streamline how the company’s portfolio of brands are named (co-branded, endorsed, etc.) and identified (logo, typography, etc.). It provides a roadmap for future acquisition naming. Most importantly, it is a communication tool that helps shape internal and external stakeholders’ understanding of what a firm does and how they interact with its brands.


What is Information Architecture?

When it comes to a company’s website, brand architecture does not provide all of the information necessary for success. That’s because website design centers around the end-user, i.e., the target visitor and their goals on the site.

Website design is all about maximizing the usability and findability of information.

Enter information architecture, which focuses on organizing, structuring and labeling content on a website in an effective and sustainable way for the end-user.

Often, a website offers many entry points for how end-users can get information, such as region, product, vertical, or customer type.

For example, if you’re a prospect of a global company operating in Europe, you may want to look up information based on your location, because information for North America is not relevant. You may want to go directly to the product you’re interested in. Or, you might want to learn about all of the products and services within your vertical market, say Energy or Financial Services.

Either way, you’ll want to find the information you are looking for as quickly as possible – the main driver of information architecture.

When They Are the Same

Brand and information architecture often overlap, sometimes very closely. This is especially true for companies with fewer brands, products or services. For example, in a Master Brand architecture strategy (where each product or service is named after and organized under the corporate brand), a company might be able to get away with the same website organization as its brand portfolio.

While there are instances when the information architecture of the website includes the exact organization and structure of products or services in a company’s portfolio, it’s not usually the case.

When They Are Different 

Even if a company’s offerings line up with how information might be organized on its website, it doesn’t mean that the company’s brand architecture is the same as its information architecture.

On one hand, end-user needs may dictate that it is important for the website to offer several different ways to get to certain types of information.

There are also operational considerations. For example, if the website is meant to be a lead generation platform for the company, that can have important implications for information architecture that doesn’t necessarily relate to or impact brand architecture.

On the other end of the spectrum, the brand may have so many properties, such as in a House of Brands architecture, that it would be inordinately chaotic to try to include all of the products and their related pages on one master website.

Lastly, there may be website content that isn’t part of the brand architecture, such as whitepapers, events, careers, and investor information. While there are definitely branded offerings that could also be present on the corporate brand architecture, such as a branded corporate social responsibility program, there are many more content types that are web-only.

Like brand architecture, information architecture is a communication tool. But one with a singular purpose: to serve visitors of a website.

Yes, the website is an expression of the brand, but it has a very specific list of functions. And therein lies the fundamental difference: brand architecture is driven primarily by the goals and needs of a firm’s business and brand; information architecture is driven primarily by the goals and needs of the website’s end-users.

So What It Does It All Mean?

While each type of architecture should play a beneficial role by providing input to the other, in most cases, one won’t define the other. They are separate but equally important. When done well, both help simplify and communicate information, making it easier for clients, prospects, employees, investors and other stakeholders to understand and interact with a firm and its brands.

The desire to jump right into website design following a rebranding initiative is understandable. Who doesn’t want to make the right first impression? And today, those impressions are made online. But, B2B marketers who take the time to think through brand architecture first – even if it is not part of go-to-market communications – will benefit from having a clearer and more consistent understanding of what your firm actually does and a streamlined platform for achieving business and brand goals.

Share This

Post-Merger Branding: Why Good on Paper is not Good Enough

It’s official: 2014 was a breakout year for M&A.  According to Thompson Reuters, last year was the strongest year for dealmaking since before the recession. And this momentum seems to be carrying into 2015.

Mergers and acquisitions are most often viewed from a financial perspective. However, as brand strategists, we have seen…

Do Companies Need to Treat Employees and Recruits More Like Customers?

Earlier this year, Harvard Business Review published an interesting report charting what millennials across the world want from work. Their hypothesis was that, to date, much of the research done on millennials has been skewed towards a more Western population. Their findings point to some key differences across cultures that hold important implications for employers…