In most discussions of brand architecture the focus is on the role of the masterbrand in relation to the sub-brand. What level of endorsement should it have and what are the values and attributes that the sub-brand must retain?

However, to paraphrase JFK, sometimes it is worth asking not what your masterbrand can do for your sub-brand but what your sub-brand can do for the masterbrand.

One of the roles that a sub-brand can play is to help rejuvenate a tired brand or help inject new and complementary values and attributes.

A classic case relates to Nestle and Kit Kat in the UK. Now globally Nestle is a major player in the chocolate confectionary market but in the UK it was always hidden under the huge shadow of Cadbury. When Nestle acquired Rowntree’s they also acquired the Kit Kat brand. The introduction of Nestle onto the Kit Kat pack in the UK did little to help Kit Kat. Indeed some argued it could even damage it.

However when you look at from the other point of view, over time as Kit Kat has become more linked to Nestle, it has helped establish Nestle’s credentials as a major player in chocolate confectionary in the UK.  A clear case of the sub-brand playing a role of positively building and modifying the attributes and associations of the masterbrand.

There are many things around us that we do not know – despite how important and massive they are. For instance: Did you know that :

e-bay has about 300 million users in 30 countries, generates 50 petabytes of transactions data per day, and if all the people who made a living from buying and selling through it were employed by one company, they would be amongst the largest employers in the world?

Source: Knowit and The New York Times

Whilst choosing my breakfast in the cereal aisle, I was intrigued to see that Kellogg’s have launched a new packaging design across the Special K range. My initial thoughts were that it certainly looked more modern; but also that it was clinical and stark.

On paper, Kellogg’s have taken what would appear to be positive steps towards improving the packaging in terms of ‘design’; simplifying the images, fonts and the background and, if tested, consumers may even rationalise in a research-setting that this design is an improvement. However, consumers’ response to FMCG packaging is impulsive and therefore, not straightforward.

Our packaging communication experience has taught us that, what is sometimes considered as ‘clutter’ on a design, can often be working hard to communicate positive messages to the consumers’ sub-conscious. The old Special K packaging included a blue information flash, a swoosh in the background of the right-hand side and shadowing behind the product name all of which added a warmth which helped dial up appetite appeal, signal quality and make it eye-catching. Without these devices the packaging looks somewhat sterile and over-simplified so that it could be mistaken as the private label version.

Even the images of the wheat and the flakes appear to have undergone colour treatment to make them look lighter. This may have been an attempt to make the product look fresher, but along with the other changes, the result is that the product looks disappointingly artificial.

Our approach to packaging evaluation ensures we explore the rational responses which help us build the right solution as well as qualitatively exploring the emotional, intuitive responses which consumers often find it difficult to articulate. Using a range of techniques and stimulus we are able get beyond the rational to the more emotional responses which allows us to understand how consumers will intuitively react to the pack when it is on shelf.

Frank Cottrell Boyce, author and screenwriter, said that “Chocolate is poetry for the mouth. And poetry is like chocolate for the brain.” These words were a response to the entrants whom he was judging in Divine’s latest marketing campaign: a poetry competition.  Boyce’s words may be more saccharine-drenched than the chocolate, but his statement aligns with Divine’s brand positioning perfectly.

Divine was launched in the 90s as a way of channelling the produce of a Ghanaian cocoa-farming co-operative, Kuapa Kokoo, into UK markets. The result is the only Fairtrade chocolate company which is 45% owned by the farmers, ensuring that they receive a better deal for their produce, a share of Divine’s profits and a stronger voice in the cocoa industry.

Divine position themselves as “a heavenly chocolate with a heart” and from the narrative enthusiasm they apply to telling their story to the native symbols on the packaging, representing values such as interdependence, democracy and harmony, they are undoubtedly the chocolate bar that’s good inside and out.

In a £4billion UK chocolate market such integrity may not be sufficient to share a slice of the highly-sought offerings. Divine’s fraction of such a vast market is not supported by profligate advertising campaigns; indeed many of its competitors will spend around 10% of their revenue on marketing, a budget on which Divine remains much more tight-fisted.

Instead of pricey print campaigns the chocolatier focuses on more unusual methods of improving its brand’s awareness. The poetry competition received thousands of entrants when it asked people to imagine they owned a chocolate shop. Their online presence is also extremely promising: they have 13,000 followers on Twitter and over 4,000 likes on Facebook, compared to a paltry 1,000 for Galaxy. Pinterest especially seems to be the mainstay of Divine, where recipes and serving suggestions abound. The brand which so passionately supports social values seems to have found a home in social media.

So is it working?

Divine saw profits in its fledging year of just over £600,000; in 2011, 5 years on, they have nearly trebled that sum to £1.7million. Their awareness of growing concerns surrounding the production and labour involved in creating the foods we love and their closeness to their consumers allow this small Davidian brand to compete with the chocolate goliaths out there. Divine’s heart throbs throughout its products and at its heart is the wellbeing and value of those who create the product. Divine must have had our philosophy here at The Value Engineers in mind when they chose to outthink rather than outspend their competitors.

This morning the details surrounding the Co-Operative Bank’s takeover of 632 Lloyds Banking Group branches became a little clearer.

The deal sees Co-Op acquiring the branches at a knock-down price, with Lloyds almost paying them to buy – as well as providing management, back office systems and a £1.5bn covenant.  On the face of it this is tough for Lloyds (who seem to have the raw end of the deal), but it also poses challenges for the Co-Op.

Obviously tripling in size will give them the sort of clout and ability to disrupt the marketplace that has long been missing from new challengers in the UK banking landscape, but that doesn’t mean its all going to be plain sailing.

At present the high street banking market looks set to hot up – banks need to improve their reputations, and a sure way to do that is through improved customer service.  The cries of the Co-Op may be lost within the general noise of the big players – all shouting about how they have changed, and how they are putting their customers front and centre.  The challenge for Co-Op is to explain why and how they are different, so that the public don’t just decide to give their current providers yet another chance.

Obviously, Co-Op does have a genuinely differentiating (and genuine) ethical business positioning, but it’s still going to need the right products, positioned in the right way and supported by the right service package – otherwise even the customers which it has inherited from Lloyds are going to walk right out of the door.

The other point is around the terms of the deal itself.  Robert Peston on the Today Programme this morning made the point that the deal is so advantageous to the Co-Op that it is likely Lloyds would never have agreed to it if they weren’t being leaned on so heavily by the government (through their state and EU financial support).  This is a blessing and a potential curse for the Co-Op.  On the one hand they’ve got a whole new branch network and set of customers to serve at a very attractive price, on the other, people might start to question whether the deal provides an adequate return to the taxpayer (given how much government money has been pumped into LBG).

Co-Op needs to be sensitive to this and aggressively point out why this is a good deal for its customers, and a more general good thing for the high street banking market.

If it can overcome these hurdles, then we might be at the dawn of a new era for retail bank competition – and one in which the customer truly does benefit.