… and the one scenario where it might actually make sense
An accounting firm marketer recently contacted me about a sub-branding question. One of her firm’s partners had expressed interest in spinning off a separate brand for his practice group. He wanted a different name, new visual identity, and dedicated marketing materials.
I had to be direct: this is probably a terrible idea.
I know that sounds counterintuitive coming from someone who helps professional services firms build remarkable brands. You might expect me to champion more branding activity but reality makes the situation a bit more complicated. Most sub-branding requests in professional services are expensive solutions looking for problems.
Here’s why your firm should think twice before creating that entirely new shiny sub-brand.
Consider the costs
Sub-branding isn’t just about designing a new logo. You’re committing to an entirely separate marketing operation with ongoing expenses.
Consider what you will need to support this new entity:
- Web pages and conversion systems
- Separate social media presence
- New business cards and collateral
- Different email signatures and templates
- Distinct content strategy
- Additional marketing staff or agency support
A friend shared his experience as marketing director at a mid-size university. He managed marketing for more than a dozen academic departments and several sales units (internal clients.) Most clients cooperated with the centralized brand approach. Others demanded their own logos, messages, tools and budgets.
“When these business unit leaders didn’t get what they wanted from me, they would petition a sympathetic executive to appeal to the president,” he told me. “The president usually supported the centralized approach, but occasionally would capitulate. An ill-conceived sub-brand was born that competed with our primary brand for resources and attention.”
This creates a vicious cycle. Sub-brands drain resources from your main brand, which is probably already underfunded. Professional services marketing budgets are tight. Splitting that limited investment across multiple brands weakens everything.
Research on B2B sub-branding shows the pattern clearly. Companies often spend substantial amounts creating and maintaining sub-brands without seeing corresponding revenue increases. The costs add up quickly, and many firms discover the projected returns never materialize.
The motivation fueling many sub-branding appeals
Let’s address the real question: why do partners push for separate brands?
The answer usually has nothing to do with market strategy. It’s about control.
Practice group leaders want authority over their marketing process. They want to make decisions about messaging, design, and promotional activities without going through centralized marketing. Unique sub-branding feels like independence.
This motivation is understandable but problematic. Fragmented marketing leads to brand fragmentation and dilution. You end up with multiple weak brands instead of one strong brand.
Ask yourself these questions when someone requests a sub-brand:
- Is the motivation to better align with market needs and opportunities?
- Or is it a desire for service line leaders to exert more control over the marketing process?
Explore the former. Avoid the latter.
When a sub-brand makes sense
I’m not completely opposed to sub-branding. There’s one scenario where it can work: when you’re selling to a very different audience than your parent brand serves.
The key word is “very.”
If your practice group markets to the same CFOs and business owners that your core services serve, you’re creating confusion. These prospects don’t need multiple brands from your firm. They need clarity about how you help them.
The Big Four accounting firms provide good examples of when sub-branding works. Deloitte Private targets private companies and family businesses … a genuinely different audience than their public company audit clients. PwC’s Strategy& focuses on strategy consulting services, serving different decision-makers with different needs than traditional accounting services. EY’s Strategy and Transactions division addresses strategic and transactional needs that require specialized positioning.
These examples work because the audiences, buying processes, and relationship dynamics are fundamentally different. The sub-brands aren’t just internal reorganizations … they’re responses to distinct market needs.
Even then, proceed carefully. Ask these practical questions:
- Will the projected revenue exceed the cost of separate marketing plans, promotions, advertising, and staffing?
- Do you have the resources to maintain two distinct marketing operations?
- Is this a long-term strategic priority, or a short-term experiment?
The power of a singular focus
Marketing under one brand name builds equity across all your efforts. Brand recognition happens faster. Marketing investments compound instead of competing.
When prospects see your firm name consistently across different services, they start to understand your full capabilities. They think of you for multiple needs. Referrals become easier because people know how to describe what you do.
Sub-brands fragment this recognition. Prospects learn about your specialized practice but never connect it to your other services. You miss cross-selling opportunities. Your marketing efficiency plummets.
The most successful professional services firms I work with have clear, unified brands that encompass their full range of capabilities. They invest deeply in making their main brand remarkable instead of spreading resources across multiple weaker brands.
Questions to ask before creating a sub-brand
Before you commit to a sub-branding strategy, work through these considerations:
Market differentiation: Does this service line need to reach a genuinely different audience? Or are you just organizing internal teams differently?
Resource allocation: Can you fund separate marketing operations without weakening your main brand? Most firms can’t.
Long-term strategy: Is this part of a plan to eventually sell or spin off this division? Sub-branding makes more sense if independence is the goal.
Control motivation: Are partners requesting this because they want marketing authority, or because market needs demand it?
Competitive advantage: Will separate branding help you compete more effectively, or just look more like everyone else in your industry?
The alternative approach
Instead of creating a sub-brand, consider strengthening your main brand’s positioning around different service areas.
You can create distinct messaging for different practices while maintaining brand unity. Your practice groups can have specialized content, case studies, and marketing materials that still carry your firm’s main brand identity.
This approach gives practice groups some autonomy while preserving marketing efficiency. You avoid the costs and confusion of multiple brands while still addressing specific market needs.
Make the right choice for your firm
Sub-branding can work in specific circumstances. When you’re genuinely serving different markets with different needs, a sub-branding strategy might make strategic sense.
But most professional services sub-branding requests are expensive distractions. They drain resources from building a remarkable main brand. They create confusion for prospects who could benefit from understanding your full capabilities.
Before you design that new logo, ask hard questions about motivation and market need. Make sure you’re solving a real problem, not creating new ones.
Your firm has a story worth telling. Make sure you’re telling it clearly, consistently, and with the care and budget it deserves.
What about you? What sub-branding requests have you encountered at your firm? How did you evaluate whether separate branding made strategic sense?
