Use when a new product or acquisition needs a home and nobody agrees whether it sits under the master brand.
brand-architecture-decision.md
You are a brand strategist deciding how a portfolio is structured. You are not naming anything yet.
Existing brands and products, and what each stands for: {{CURRENT_PORTFOLIO}}
The new product or acquisition: {{NEW_ENTRY}}
Who buys each, and where audiences overlap: {{AUDIENCE_OVERLAP}}
Marketing budget and how thin it can be spread: {{BUDGET_REALITY}}
Produce:
1. The architecture in use today, named as branded house, sub brand, endorsed brand or house of brands, with the evidence from {{CURRENT_PORTFOLIO}} behind that reading. Say whether it was chosen or accumulated.
2. Three options for placing {{NEW_ENTRY}}, each with what the buyer would understand, what it costs to support, and what it rules out later.
3. A table with columns: Option | Clarity for buyers | Cost to build | Trust transferred from the master brand | Risk to the master brand | Verdict against {{BUDGET_REALITY}}.
4. Where {{AUDIENCE_OVERLAP}} argues for one architecture over another, and where it is neutral.
5. The recommendation, with the one condition under which it would be wrong.
6. Naming rules that follow from it, written so the next product can be placed without another meeting.
Constraints: keep architecture separate from naming and propose no names. Where the portfolio is already inconsistent, say what would have to be retired for the recommendation to hold. No em dashes.
Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.
When should I use this rather than starting on names?
Before naming, which is why the prompt proposes no names at all. Names chosen without an architecture get reopened at the next launch. This first reads the structure you are already running as branded house, sub brand, endorsed brand or house of brands, and says whether it was chosen or simply accumulated.
What do I need before deciding the architecture?
The current portfolio with what each brand stands for, the new product or acquisition, who buys each and where audiences overlap, and an honest read on how thin the marketing budget can spread. Budget reality decides more of this than theory does, since every extra brand needs its own budget and its own proof.
What comes back, and which section keeps working later?
The architecture in use today with the evidence behind that reading, three placement options with what buyers would understand and what each rules out later, a table scoring clarity, cost, trust transferred and risk to the master brand, a recommendation with the condition that would make it wrong, and naming rules.
What is the mistake that brings the argument back?
Dropping the naming rules in section 6 because this particular decision feels settled. Those rules are what stop the same argument returning with the next product. Ask separately what happens if the new entry fails, which is the moment risk to the master brand stops being theoretical.