KNB Communications :: Blog

Biotech branding strategy: monolithic, house of brands, hybrid—which one’s right for you?

Written by Beth Cooper, JD / MBA | Mar 20, 2025 2:33:33 PM

By Beth Cooper, JD / MBA

Branding in biotech is a different beast. You’re not selling soda or sneakers; you’re building trust with scientists, investors, providers, and patients—often at the same time. So how do you structure your brand(s) to make the biggest impact, while balancing the best use of your marketing resources?

There are three main models: monolithic, house of brands, and hybrid—plus a few outliers. Each has strengths, weaknesses, and best-fit scenarios. Let’s break them down with real biotech examples so you can pick the right one.

01. Monolithic branding (a.k.a. the master brand model)

What it is:

One name to rule them all. In a monolithic model, everything lives under one strong, singular brand identity. No sub-brands, no competing personalities—just one powerhouse name that carries everything.

Examples in biotech:

  • Exact Sciences – everything from Cologuard to precision oncology testing is anchored to the core brand
  • Illumina – the entire portfolio, from sequencing tech to software, exists under one unified identity
  • Moderna – mRNA vaccines, therapeutics, and partnerships all reinforce a single, science-driven brand

Pros:

Brand equity compounds – every success strengthens the entire company’s reputation

Trust carries across pipelines – a win in oncology builds confidence in your work in infectious diseases

Cost-effective – especially for small and early-stage companies, it’s often not feasible to develop and support multiple brands. A single strong brand saves money and resources

Cons:

Risk concentration – a scandal, failed trial, or controversy affects the entire brand

Less flexibility for pivots – if you expand into a radically different area, the monolithic identity might not fit

Harder to tailor for niche audiences – one size doesn’t always fit all

When to use it:

When you have a high-trust name backed by data, leadership, and credibility. When your technology is a platform, not just a single product. When you want to maximize brand awareness across all therapy areas or applications.

 

02. House of brands (a.k.a. the independent brand model)

What it is:

Every product, therapy, or business unit gets its own brand identity. The parent company operates behind the scenes, while sub-brands stand on their own.

Examples in biotech:

  • Johnson & Johnson – you know Band-Aid, Tylenol, and Janssen, but you don’t necessarily see J&J stamped on everything
  • Nestlé Health Science – owns brands like Boost, Vital Proteins, and Aimmune Therapeutics, all marketed separately
  • Danaher Corporation – houses biotech brands like Cytiva, Leica Biosystems, and Beckman Coulter Diagnostics

Pros:

Risk diversification – if one brand has issues, the others remain unaffected

Tailored messaging – each brand can be hyper-focused on its specific audience

Flexibility for M+A – easier to acquire and integrate brands without forcing a rebrand

Cons:

Expensive – each brand needs its own marketing, website, and awareness-building

Can dilute parent brand strength – if the parent company isn’t well known, it won’t carry weight

Harder to cross-sell – brands don’t naturally reinforce each other’s credibility

When to use it:

When targeting distinct audiences. When your business is built on M+A. When you want maximum flexibility to pivot, sell off, or spin out brands.

 

Branding in biotech is a different beast. You’re not selling soda or sneakers; you’re building trust with scientists, investors, providers, and patients—often at the same time

03. Hybrid branding (a.k.a. the endorsed model or mixed model)

What it is:

A middle ground between monolithic and house of brands. The parent company name is visible but doesn’t overshadow sub-brands. Think of it as “branded sub-brands.”

Examples in biotech:

  • Roche and Genentech – Genentech keeps its name but is explicitly “a member of the Roche Group”
  • AstraZeneca and Alexion – Alexion retains its identity but benefits from the AstraZeneca halo since the acquisition
  • Thermo Fisher Scientific – the company is well-known, but brands like Invitrogen and Applied Biosystems still carry weight

Pros:

  • Best of both worlds – strong parent brand + recognizable sub-brands
  • Easier for partnerships and acquisitions – you can maintain brand equity while integrating under one umbrella
  • Flexible marketing strategies – some brands can be independent, while others align closely with the parent

Cons:

Confusing hierarchy – customers may not always understand the relationship between brands

Requires strategic discipline – without clear guidelines, branding can get messy

Still requires investment – a hybrid model still means managing multiple brand touchpoints

When to use it:

When you have well-known sub-brands but want to strengthen the corporate identity. When you’re acquiring companies but want to keep their credibility intact. When partnerships are a key part of your strategy, and dual-branding builds trust.

 

Other branding structures (less common, but worth considering)

Branded house

A variation of monolithic, where the parent brand is prominent but product lines have their own clearly named extensions.
Example: Bio-Rad with product lines like CFX, PrimePCR, and S3e—all part of the Bio-Rad ecosystem.

Ingredient branding

When your technology is used by others, and its value lies in being inside someone else’s product.

Example: CRISPR Therapeutics licensing its CRISPR platform to partners.

 

Co-branding / partnerships

Two independent brands join forces for a shared initiative.

Example: Pfizer and BioNTech co-branding their COVID-19 vaccine.

 

A quick note on brand evolution

Many biotech companies start as monolithic brands because it’s efficient and cost-effective. As they grow, acquire, or diversify, they often evolve into hybrid or house of brands. Your architecture should serve where you are—and where you’re going.

So, which one is right for your biotech?

Ask yourself:

  • Are we building long-term brand equity or optimizing for agility?
  • Do we want audiences to associate everything with our company name?
  • Are we acquiring companies and need flexibility?
  • Do we have radically different audiences?

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution—but there is a smart, strategic one that fits your goals. Pick your structure on purpose, and you’ll save yourself a branding migraine later.

Need help sorting it out? That’s what we do.

AI disclosure: This blog was developed in collaboration with generative AI to assist with structure, research (such as locating and generating URLs), and refinement. All content was reviewed, guided, and edited by a human author to reflect personal expertise, strategic insight, and voice.