What is the primary difference between a branded house and a house of brands architecture, concerning brand resource allocation?

The primary difference between a branded house and a house of brands architecture concerning brand resource allocation lies in how resources are distributed and leveraged across different products or services. In a branded house architecture, a single, dominant brand name is used for all products or services offered by the company. Resources are heavily concentrated on building and maintaining the master brand, with the expectation that positive brand equity will transfer to all offerings under that brand. For example, Google operates as a branded house, with resources largely focused on strengthening the Google brand, which then benefits products like Google Search, Google Maps, and Google Drive. In contrast, a house of brands architecture involves a company managing a portfolio of independent brands, each with its own distinct identity and target market. Resources are allocated separately to each brand, with the goal of building strong, individual brand equity for each. Procter & Gamble exemplifies a house of brands, investing in the unique brand identities and marketing strategies for each of its brands like Tide, Pampers, and Gillette, with less emphasis on a central P&G brand. This means a branded house centralizes resources for overall brand building, while a house of brands distributes resources to build individual brand identities, potentially leading to higher marketing costs but also greater flexibility in targeting diverse markets.