Why MedTech companies are rethinking the ‘house of brands’ model
By Hazel Haskayne, Director
The legacy of organic brand growth
For years, MedTech portfolios have grown organically: acquisitions layered on top of legacy brands, product names created for sales teams, and brand architectures shaped by internal history rather than customer needs. For a long time, this worked, until it didn’t.
As MedTech companies shift towards platforms, digital ecosystems, and long-term partnerships with healthcare systems, many are reaching the same realisation FMCG companies faced over a decade ago: too many brands can slow you down.
Lessons from FMCG: scaling trust through a Masterbrand
When large FMCG companies moved from a ‘house of brands’ to a ‘branded house’ model, the change wasn’t about aesthetics or cutting costs. It was about scaling trust, so that when a consumer had a positive experience with one product, that confidence could transfer more easily to the next category, launch, or innovation carrying the same name.
Through that transition, FMCG organisations learned that a strong Masterbrand builds equity that carries into every new launch, and that consistency across colour, logo, naming, and style strengthens recognition beyond any single campaign. Just as importantly, fewer, clearer brand signals help products stand out in crowded markets rather than disappearing into the wider category.
Over time, that consistency builds recognisable equity in the Masterbrand itself, making it easier for new products to be identified, trusted, and remembered in increasingly crowded categories. For MedTech companies, these insights are arguably even more relevant because the stakes are higher.
MedTech decisions are about more than a single device
Most MedTech purchasing decisions aren’t about a single device. They’re about instilling confidence in the company behind the portfolio.
Clinicians, procurement teams, and healthcare systems are asking broader questions. For example, if a hospital is considering a company’s monitoring platform for one department today, they are rarely evaluating that device in isolation. They also want to know whether the wider portfolio will integrate with existing systems, whether training and service will be consistent across sites, and whether future upgrades or adjacent products can be adopted with confidence.
Can we trust this company across multiple use cases?
Will their technology integrate, evolve, and be supported long term?
What’s it like doing business with them, and will they let us down?
This is where a Masterbrand, the core company brand that sits across the portfolio, begins to work harder than a collection of standalone product brands.
When the Masterbrand becomes part of the value proposition
When a well-defined Masterbrand stops being “marketing” and becomes part of the value proposition.
It can:
De-risk adoption of new technologies and indications
Accelerate uptake across platforms and product generations
Simplify complex portfolios for overwhelmed buyers
Create coherence across devices, software, training, and services
This doesn’t mean eliminating product brands altogether. It means redefining their role.
The most effective MedTech portfolios today are shifting toward a leading Masterbrand that stands for outcomes, reliability, and partnership. Product names then help customers understand what each offer is for, rather than competing with the company brand for attention. Clear naming protocols help customers quickly understand how everything fits together.
The real challenge: organisational change
One of the most powerful lessons from FMCG is that moving to a branded house, where the company brand takes the lead across the portfolio, was not primarily a customer challenge, it was an organisational one. MedTech companies often face the same internal friction.
Sales teams may be attached to legacy product brands, regional teams may interpret brand strategy differently, Innovation and R&D functions are rarely involved in brand architecture discussions. Yet companies can learn from the FMCG experience by:
Ensuring sales and regional teams are aligned and engaged early
Addressing attachment to legacy product brands
Bringing innovation and R&D teams into brand strategy conversations
Sales teams may be attached to legacy product brands, regional teams may interpret brand strategy differently, and innovation or R&D functions are rarely involved in brand architecture discussions. FMCG companies faced similar internal tensions when they tried to bring acquired brands, local market teams, and innovation pipelines under a clearer Masterbrand. The lesson is not that the sectors are identical, but that successful brand architecture change depends on cross-functional alignment, not just a new visual system. MedTech companies can apply that principle by:
Ensuring sales teams are aligned and engaged early
Giving regional teams enough clarity to apply the strategy consistently
Addressing attachment to legacy product brands
Bringing innovation and R&D teams into brand strategy conversations
Evidence over opinion
The companies that succeed treat brand architecture as an evidence-based transformation, not a design exercise. They ground decisions in a deep understanding of how customers perceive risk, value, and trust, rather than how the organisation chart is structured.
The companies that succeed treat brand architecture, the way the Masterbrand, product brands, and naming system fit together, as an evidence-based transformation rather than a design exercise. They ground decisions in a deep understanding of how customers perceive risk, value, and trust, rather than letting internal reporting lines or legacy structures dictate how the portfolio is organised.
This matters because brand architecture decisions are often made through internal debate: strong opinions, long meetings, and little proof.
The MedTech leaders getting this right are doing something different. They are pressure-testing assumptions with real customers, understanding where brand genuinely influences adoption and where it doesn’t. They are also using insight to align commercial, clinical, and innovation teams around a shared direction.
The lesson MedTech leaders should be considering
As MedTech continues to move toward integrated care, digital platforms, and outcome-based models, the lesson from FMCG isn’t ‘simply to simplify for simplicity’s sake’, it’s to use the Masterbrand to scale trust across increasingly complex systems. And the companies that succeed will be those willing to ground these decisions in real-world insight, not internal legacy.