Navigating B2B brand
architecture: house of
brands vs. branded house with Ifeoma Jibunoh, Group CMO of Cassava Technologies

Speaker A: B2B has the potential to be electrifying, but the industry is paralyzed by a culture of conservatism, scared stiff in a straitjacket of rational ideas. It's time for change. It's time to make B2B marketing visceral. Join us as we uncover and explore the Truth with leading B2B marketers. This is B2B Marketing the Provocative Truth. Hello, and welcome to B2B Marketing the Provocative Truth. I'm Benedikt and today I'm joined by Yifey Jubineau, who is Group CMO of Cassava Technologies. A very, very warm welcome to the podcast. How you doing?

Speaker B: Thank you for having me. I'm very well, thank you.

Speaker A: Excellent. And today we're going to be talking about House of Brands versus branded House, which on the face of it sounds like a very, very theoretical conversation. But we want to take it beyond maybe where the usual sort of territory is and understand the human dimension now, which might sound a little bit cliche, but bear with me and I will explain. I think that when a brand is confronted with that, that big decision, naturally the sort of the thought process is all about how can I extract the most sort of market value, how can I get synergy between those, those brands, how can I make sure that equity is transferred? And what's maybe not understood fully is that when you go through something that it is business transformation. And one of the biggest success factors in business transformation is how you manage that change management process. And that's where I'd like to sort of focus our conversation today, because to sort of serve a provocative truth to get us going. I think that a lot of marketers understand the theory behind branded House vs House of Brands, but don't potentially understand the sort of the emotional dimensions which are key now. It's going to be, I think, a really a practical conversation because you have actually been through this experience, you, uh, know, relatively recently. So you're going to be talking from a very qualified perspective. But before we get into sort of that emotional dimension, it would be wonderful if you could set the scene in terms of the experience you had with Cassava Technologies. And ultimately you have ended up with a house of brands. I'd be fascinated to understand really what were the circumstances which brought Cassava to having to make that decision and how was that framed as a brief almost to you by the business?

Speaker B: Yeah, it was a very interesting journey. But, you know, like you said at Cassava Technologies, it wasn't a design or a marketing decision. It was a leadership decision. You Know we were and still are building the future digital journey for Africa. Misava Technologies is a portfolio technology company that plays in connectivity, it plays in cloud and cybersecurity, it plays in colocation as well as financial services. But it was inheriting decades of trust, um, with relation to brands that were established in different countries with different customer segments, with different levels of equity. So the decision to establish a, uh, portfolio fit for the future while still being true to the past was indeed more than the design decision. It was about stewardship. But to explain the context a bit, 2021, this new brand and company to a large extent was set up. Cassava Technologies were set up in 2021. I was hired two months prior to that point, where the decision was made to create a structure that brought together, uh, five different brands that had varying levels of equity. They were at different stages of their life cycle, different customer segments, different stakeholders, different business entities. To a large extent within the technology industry, there was a lot of sentiment and leaning towards signaling ambition, signaling modernity, signaling something new and progressive and bold. So the debate about how do you package that portfolio to ensure that you unlock the value, unlock growth and signal that ambition was the brief, uh, which then became, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about throwing away 20 years of established customer relations relationships under very established brands? So we had liquid intelligent technologies, we had Africa data centers, two extremely established brands within the African context that, like I said, had distinct customer segments, distinct value propositions, as well as distinct levels of equity. So then it became, okay, let's go back to the marketing principles. We have models that we can play around with. So the debate became, let's try and make a rational decision. Uh, let's try and go back to the basics from a marketing perspective. And then the question came, is it a branded house, which is what people were leaning towards internally, or was it going to be a house of brands that maintain that 20 years of credibility and equity? So it became a question of how do you build for the future while protecting the past.

Speaker A: Um, I think really interesting what you were saying there in terms of the initial sort of leaning of the business was towards a branded house. First house Random, which is where we've ended up in, in terms of that perception of the business, that being the right decision. What were the sort of the driving forces behind, behind that. And I wonderful. If you could disentangle maybe some of the emotional driving forces and maybe some of the business driving forces.

Speaker B: Yeah. So, you know, there was a, uh, sentiment internally and it's very technology Focused. It's all about forward facing, unlocking future potential, galvanizing the organization around a new opportunity. We had different parts of the business that if you looked at the individual parts were not fully representing the future possibility. So the desire to package everything under one branded umbrella was the motivation. It was about delivering a new portfolio and signaling to the market that there was an ecosystem that we were delivering upon that was going to unlock future growth, not just for us, but for our customers. We were basically offering a one stop shop as opposed to just offering cloud or cybersecurity or financial services or, or connectivity. We were offering a portfolio that would unlock growth and that would capitalize efficiencies for the different customer segments. So it was not just emotional or sexy or modern, it wasn't just about the new, but it was about the power of the portfolio and being able to unlock that portfolio opportunity, uh, both for the customer segments and for the marketplace.

Speaker A: And so when you went through, I mean, I'm sure it would have been a detailed process, lots of stakeholder engagement, probably really understanding of how the brands are perceived in the marketplace. What was, I suppose the, the insight or that moment of epiphany for you that actually the model here is House of Brands. This is going to be the most effective, does it?

Speaker B: Yeah, you know, it goes back to stewardship. Uh, and coincidentally one of the values of the organization is faithful stewardship. But as a marketeer you have to resist the sexy modern, not shortcuts, but you know, to move with the trend you have to have respect for some fundamentals and not just the fundamentals of marketing, but the fact that this organization has been around for over 20 years. This organization had research backed facts in relation to the equity, the relationship with customers, the awareness levels, you know, so we had conducted significant amounts of research with the level of awareness of the respective brands. So we were able to establish very clearly that if you were to launch a uh, new brand with zero levels of awareness, do you gain more vis a vis building what has been around for 20 years? So balancing the pros and the cons of launching a very new brand, which we had to do anyway because it became a parent brand. So on the sidelines we were building a new brand, building a new logo, building a new framework in terms of, okay, what does this brand actually mean? But then the go to markets process in relation to does that brand remain as a parent brand or do you take it as your go to market door opener with customers whereas they're like, okay, but what happened to liquid yesterday? You guys were liquid yesterday. You guys were adc. Why are you coming to me with this new brand that I've heard nothing about? So the practicalities and the market realities, uh, and you know, we work in over 30 markets in Africa and those closest to customers, those closest to the market realities as well as the data reinforced what just became the practical, rational thing to do.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: You know, so it was relatively easy to lead more on the research on the practical realities, on what we could lose. Mhm. As opposed to what we could gain and weigh up the two and understand that then it became a very simple choice.

Speaker A: Well, I'm really interested to hear what the reaction was of the leadership team when you presented that which went in the maybe against what the hypothesis had been. But before we do that, I'd be fascinated to understand what would you have need to seen in the research that you and your team conducted that would have made you come to the opposite conclusion that actually it would be right to have a branded house.

Speaker B: You know, I've worked in with different brands over my 30 year career and I've worked with brands that are relatively young in their life cycle. I've worked with brands that uh, are old and are in need of evolution. So at different stages of a marketer's career, you ask yourself, with assets that you have, does this brand require evolution or does this brand require revolution? In some cases where the equity is poor, um, where the awareness levels are uh, choppy, where the attribution is low, you have to make a significant, bold, disruptive choice. But where equity is strong, awareness is high. There's a degree of familiarity and trust and credibility for what you're offering you. You don't throw the baby away with the bath water, you know, you, you, you, you treat it as a prized jewel that needs to be protected and, and cared for in a way that yes, you can evolve very minimally but you're not going to, you know, completely disrupt what has been the memory structures within your customer minds overnight, you know, so those are some of the principles that enabled uh, me to make that decision with confidence and to be able to manage the fallout. As you know, as I'm sure you can imagine, was uh, and is still today, uh, considering we're talking about what started in 2021 and we're quite a few years, uh, post that. So it's an ongoing change management exercise.

Speaker A: Excellent. I'm definitely very keen to get onto the change management. But just, just quickly indulge, indulge me. When you presented this, what, what was the reaction of the, uh, the board, it was mixed.

Speaker B: It was mixed. There was a degree of resistance.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: And which I underestimated. You know, I came at it from a very, okay, this is fact based, this is strategic, this is rational. You know, uh, and I, I underestimated, uh, the emotional side of the equation. You know, there were those that really felt, you know, every. A lot of people believe that they're marketeers. You know, a lot of people, A lot of people believe that, you know, what are you talking about? We know, we know the direction of this, of this organization. We've made a decision to put all of these sub brands under one brand. So there was a sentiment that the natural thing to do is to just rebrand everything and move forward. And also, you know, technology embraces change and it's extremely dynamic, it's entrepreneurial. So, so the resistance that I had was, like I said, greater than I was expecting.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: However, you know, it wasn't complete resistance. You know, it was split. There were those that understood the, the reasons why and were able to appreciate the other side of the argument. They weren't as confident as I was in relation to this is the right path. You know, they were like, okay, yeah, we hear you, we get what you're saying, but, but how can you demonstrate this and how can you prove that this is the right decision? Which is where, you know, persuasion becomes a bit challenging, where you're asking for proof before you actually, you know, take that step. So you can talk about the historical side of the equation. You can talk about. Yes, but the data in the past says this. But you're not necessarily giving them a business case that, you know, is saying that a new identity versus old identity equals, you know, uh, a, uh, factor of. Because you're speaking to engineers, you know, and trying to convince engineers about principles and strategic, uh, theories is what was a challenging exercise.

Speaker A: And you mentioned that you were surprised by some of the resistance and actually that you had quite a tight rational argument for it. But maybe some of the emotional sort of like, dimensions hadn't been fully considered. What did you learn from that? And almost, I suppose for, you know, people listening to the podcast, that might be sort of about to, not literally about to walk into the boardroom to present a similar sort of case. What lessons are there in terms of how you need to get that sort of emotional recognition right when you're making a case like this?

Speaker B: Yeah, I think starting earlier is, is what I would have done a bit differently in terms of engaging people on the thinking and Also engaging people on what the process would look like. So, you know, the internal storytelling aspect and listening more so that you are prepared for the resistance that people then expressed. Because people were not debating the strategic frameworks. They were debating the loss of what could be associated with something new. They were associating it with. Yeah, are we missing out on opportunity to be this new technology conglomerate in Africa? That's signaling ambition and, you know, new identity. So it wasn't just about logos. It just, it wasn't just about frameworks. It became about identity, you know, and emotional attachments and what people had invested in. The new versus the old.

Speaker A: Yeah, it's, uh, absolutely fascinating. I think it is. I mean, which, obviously the premise of this podcast a bit is it's, it is something which is under explored as a component of branding, brand strategy, or however we want to look at it. I think it's probably a nice segue to actually, actually sort of move on to what you referred to earlier in terms of the, the change management sort of challenges which came with that. What were the sort of the, the big challenges which arose for you as a marketing leader, uh, post that decision? What were the big operational decisions you had to make? What were the big people decisions, I suppose, that you needed to make?

Speaker B: No, it's a great, it's a great question. And like I said, it's one that's, we're still going through because it's not an exercise that you do once, but it centers around a few principles. One is governance, um, ensuring that despite the fact that we decided and have still decided to have a house of brands, you have to have a degree of conformity and government and governance, as well as creating a freedom within a framework. Uh, so the governance was in relation to, okay, we have different brands, they have distinct customer segments, distinct value propositions, as well as different levels of equity. But they should have shared vision, they should have shared values, and they should have a shared purpose. So aligning, uh, on that framework in relation to the vision, the values and the purpose gave us the ability to have, uh, a governance that created this conformity and uniformity. We also had to do the heavy lifting in relation to the Cassava Technologies brands. Yeah. So we had to establish that. And what were the icons and symbols and identity rules that we want to establish? Which is the endorser brand? What are the different roles of the brand within the portfolio? How do you show up at, uh, events? Uh, do you signal Cassava Technologies as that umbrella brand or as an endorser brand? So quite A number of strategic marketing design and portfolio frameworks. We had to go through and develop a guideline and ensure that that was socialized, understood, and we had to also govern it. So we had to ensure that people were, uh, adhering to the principles and the frameworks and the rules that we established. So that's how we started. And then continuously speaking to the employee base, engaging with them, um, showing up with customers, sharing the Kosawa technology story, in many ways, it was a harder job to do. You know, at certain points I actually even questioned myself. I'm like, is this the right decision? Because it would be easier to just have a branded house and just slap everything in the new logo, drive efficiencies, drive cost savings, the job to do, Although it was a rational job to do, and I still do believe it's the right decision to do, it was a harder job to do because you're telling a story. Uh, you know, I love marketing in many ways because, you know, for me it's like, it is storytelling, but it's like a puzzle. And there's so many different pieces of the puzzle and sometimes the pieces are a bit clunky and sometimes it takes some, uh, number of months or years for that puzzle to make a beautiful picture. But as you're developing this picture, sometimes you lose pieces of the puzzle and you have an ugly picture. So the journey to get to that coherent story that truly was able to maintain the future ambition of growth, the future ambition of a portfolio that was an ecosystem. And that amplified the opportunity within the African context in relation to leaving neo African behind from a technology perspective and ENS that that vision was embedded into how all of the individual components showed up was tough. But we're, we're in, we're in that, uh, you know, in the trenches now and we're seeing a payoff, we're seeing it come together, but it's taken quite some time and it's an ongoing process.

Speaker A: And you spoke there around that almost. You, you took the harder route. The, the easier routes you, uh, know, would have been just to have that, that branded house. It's that singularity, it's that clarity and it's the, the efficiencies, you know, and you talk to about cost savings now, I'm not going to get into the cost savings dimension of it. I don't think it's necessarily where we want to focus our attention. But the, the other side of that same coin, when you talk about sort of efficiencies and cost savings, is how you can get you know, a sort of a horizontal halo effect between the brands in terms of passing equity. So you get greater, uh, great. And equally within the teams, how you can get that, you know, teams to be working more collaboratively and effectively. So let's deal, deal with those two, two separately. Let's start off with the, how you get some transferred equity between different brands. When you're in a house of brands model, what are, what are the key things that you think that you got right and maybe that you have learned from how to get that shared equity. Yeah, well, transferred equity. Sorry.

Speaker B: Yeah. So, so first and foremost we, we decided to use Cassava Technologies as an endorser brand. And what that meant was the more we created awareness for that, the more people understood that the sum of the whole was greater than the individual parts. So inasmuch as liquid intelligent technologies, for instance, the connectivity business had been around for 20 years and had established equity. But when it showed up alongside a data center business, a cloud cybersecurity business, a financial services business and now an AI business, the equity of the broader portfolio was then shared and lifted because we were offering more than the customer was expecting. So that was how we were able to tie the portfolio almost like a wrapper around all of the different brands that enabled us to consistently uh, borrow equity from the individual components, the babies in the portfolio. Leo like the financial services business that was relatively small, it had been around for under 10 years. That we saw benefited significantly from the association because it was at a different life stage, not as established as liquid intelligence, not technology. And it borrowed more from being associated with these other players. So each of the different brands benefited slightly differently. You know, connectivity business, it's fiber, you know, it's just Internet solutions to businesses which is seen as quite an industrial, not very forward looking business being able to say we have value added services like cloud, like cybersecurity and now with AI, it then benefited from that exposure to those value added services. So those were the effects that we saw in relation to the portfolio, uh, dynamics and benefits that existed.

Speaker A: That's, I mean incredibly interesting. And the connected part of that which I sort of trailed a second ago is, is the, is the teams. How did you get that team structure working? So people didn't just remain in their legacy brand silos, but there was that slightly cliched word but cross pollination between them and you know, share shared learnings. What, what did you, you do to get that right? And also where was that difficult because it's such a, people have such an emotional tie to legacy brands.

Speaker B: That was extremely difficult. So we, from a marketing perspective and from a marketing department structure perspective, we almost led the way in, in the sense that we were not structured, uh, to support the individual brand. We were structured to support Cassava technologies. So the way I designed the marketing operating model was to leverage the power of the portfolio and to drive the thinking in terms of the strategic customer value proposition and to unlock growth in relation to the portfolio multiplier effect. Now that's easier said than done. Our, uh, marketing department was a relatively small team of about 30 people. So it was easy to design an operating model. Now you talk about sales organizations and commercial teams across multiple markets. How then do you effectively transform the organizations in a way that drives that level of collaboration? And that's where the challenge was quite structural and required a rethink about our go to market. Our commercial teams required training because not only do you need the teams to work collaboratively together, but you need the connectivity guys to be able to sell cloud and cybersecurity. You need the cloud and cybersecurity guys to be able to sell data centers. You need the data center teams to be able to understand AI. So it required a lot of product training and sales enablement tools that ensured that they were able to do the job effectively and they had the right knowledge and they had the right tools. And then you come to the behaviors, you know, so you can equip people with tools and with, you know, the right kind of information. But then how do you encourage people to collaborate more? How do you encourage people to work more effectively as a, as, as what we call one Cassava? And that's where the change management, that's where you have to look at different operating models within the commercial teams, within the product teams. And you have to be able to move the machine to reflect the ambition that you have. You're retaining the brands, but you're evolving the go to market. So it's, it was a structural design job, it was a change management job. It's a, uh, business transformation job. It's a leadership and behaviors job. It's been a very rewarding experience, uh, because it's been tough, but it's been rewarding to see how you can effectively embed change, especially when you look at the behaviors and especially when you understand the restraints and you understand the amount of ownership that people have and the identities that people have to legacy brands and you understand how to stay true to that and respect that while still evolving for the future.

Speaker A: Well, you just, you've just talked about how rewarding an experience it was. Uh, I mean, I think absolutely there were hints within that rewarding is. God, it was an exhausting experience. Yes. But I'm sure because there is so much complexity that you just described. So maybe a nice point to finish on is now look, it is a continuous journey, as you, I think you were at pains to stress, but now you are certainly quite a way through that journey. Looking back, what, what would be that big lesson that you've learned or maybe that one thing that you would really do differently?

Speaker B: You know, the big, the big lesson for me is that it's not brand architecture is not about marketing, it's about leadership and it's about people management. You know, so ultimately you have to start with understanding the impact it has on the different stakeholders internally as well as unlocking that external ambition that you're setting and taking people along with you on the journey and not relying too much on the strategic frameworks, but really getting under the skin of the change that you're trying to enable in the organization and to also keep at it, you know, keep. Every so often two years in, a member of the leadership team is asking the question, house of Brands or Brandon House? Are we seriously having this debate again? So the expectation that it's an ongoing journey, um, managing my own expectation as well as many others, uh, and embracing that is I think part of what I would. Yeah. Say to myself at the start if I was to do it again.

Speaker A: That's brilliant. I like at the end to give a sum up. But the truth is you've just given a, a sum up or a key insight in a far more eloquent way than I, I ever would. But I think that just really what struck me there is that that phrase you said, you know, brand architecture is not, I mean, I actually think you said it's not marketing, but I mean it's not just marketing certainly. And I think conceptually the importance of seeing a brand architecture exercise or branding full stop as a legitimate business transformation exercise, just in the same way as if you were implementing a new operating system or technology. And I think a failure to do that really means that you're not going to see the benefits, you're going to be met resistance because it is ultimately an intensely emotional exercise that requires leadership. It requires change management, as you've quite rightly said. So thank you so much for coming on. That's been a really, really interesting conversation.

Speaker B: Thank you, thank you, really enjoyed it. Thank you.

Speaker A: B2B marketing. The provocative truth is brought to you by Allen Agency. To find out more, head to allen-agency.com you can stream B2B Marketing, the provocative Truth on Apple podcasts, Spotify or anywhere else great podcasts are found. And don't forget to click subscribe to ensure you don't miss out on any future episodes. On m behalf of the team here at Allen, thanks for listening.