This came in as an “Ask the Broker” question, but it’s really a general business question. I’m hoping that people reading here will have some good ideas:
I am a small real estate developer in NC. I have built one small 22 lot subdivision. I have land, plans and county approval for a 28 acre, 70 lot subdivision that I hope to construct in the spring of 2008. We have a strong corporate identity. We have created a logo and our company is starting to be recognized. We have plans to open a real estate company to market our properties as well as a general brokerage. Some people have recommended that we open the real estate company under a different name and not let people know that we are expanding our company. Keep them separate and silent. My thoughts are that we are “branding” our company’s name in our area. I want people to know our name and understand we are a full service provider. Do you have any thoughts on this subject? Thanks so much for your opinion.
My own answer to this question comes from Mark Twain: “Put all your eggs in the one basket and — WATCH THAT BASKET!” The marketing value of branding is slow and unpredictable, but I doubt it gets quicker or more sure by being divided. If you’re doing everything right in each business, I would expect there to be some marketing synergy between them.
Inlookers: Am I wrong? Is there more to gained by separating the two business identities? What else should we be thinking about?
Technorati Tags: investment, real estate, real estate marketing
Austin Realtor's Wife says:
Separation could allow both divisions to grow independently. If you decide to focus on the development division and you have a partner to take over the RE division, you could operate as sister companies with different goals/attitudes/identities and ultimately have the flexibility to move in different directions as needed. Having worked a brief stint in commercial development, I can tell you that developers of ALL sorts are not always the popular guys, so depending on your goals, a separation could work.
2. I agree with Greg, a sole identity is usually best so that your effort aren’t doubled. Typically, the format would be “Company A Development” and “Company A Real Estate” with the same logo.
Great question to ask… whatever action is taken, sooner is always better. 🙂
July 1, 2007 — 7:42 am
Richard Riccelli says:
To Greg: You are correct. One brand indivisible.
To the developer: Make the brand mean something important to the customer. Even better, but usually impossible, make it both important and unavailable elsewhere.
A brand is not a color or a symbol or a typeface. It is a benefit delivered brilliantly, consistently, and with excellence. It is what you do, not what you say you will do.
July 1, 2007 — 8:37 am
Brian Brady says:
I’ll comment for argument’s sake and also because I’m trying to transmute a brand online.
Philip Morris buys Kraft and aggressively tries to transform into a food company while minimizing the enormous contribution of tobacco profits.
Is it disingenuous? Michael Corleone never quite took his family legit but how he tried, how he tried.
Sometimes you wake up and say “Is this REALLY what I wanted?”
July 1, 2007 — 12:06 pm
Dave Barnes says:
Greg,
Proctor & Gamble would disagree.
There is no P&G brand, but Tide, Ivory, Gillette, etc.
July 1, 2007 — 1:03 pm
Russell Shaw says:
I’m with Greg and Richard. The usual (and valid) reasons for keeping brand names separate don’t apply to you, as you don’t already “have a brand”. The primary reason to not use the same brand name for something else is you have a brand (shelf space in the customer’s mind) that already stands for something specific.
July 1, 2007 — 1:10 pm
Jeremy Hart says:
I see Dave’s point that P&G wouldn’t agree, but I’m a big proponent of branding. I think P&G, Philip Morris, those folks stay away from branding the corporation over the product line because the product line is what marketing focuses on. This developer would be well-served to build his brand around this development, and keep everything in-house. And do it well – your reputation is all you have … I don’t know who to attribute the quote to, but they say your reputation takes the longest to create but is the easiest to erase.
July 2, 2007 — 6:47 am