According to me, media branding is different primarily because there aren’t any thumb rules available, especially in our domestic context where multitudinous of language diversity and regional peculiarities make the whole process all the more difficult—think of how a brand say, NDTV, would be written in a Southern language retaining the brand identity as originally envisaged and designed! Having said so, I must admit that Zee is a very successful brand present in every part of the television realm in our market.

So, what's the right approach to brand a media property, especially in our market? Is corporate branding the more powerful tool or is it individual branding more effective? One major problem with this is that we don't have a clear example of one model working better than the other in our domestic context or from any other market. Be it the Times or the Network18 groups' successful way of individual branding or the NDTV group's umbrella branding model, there isn't clear example to choose one over the other.

But this isn't so compounding in other businesses. For instance, the Tatas, Reliance, auto or telecom players all follow umbrella branding, while this isn't workable in the consumer goods space, say for Unilever, P&G or Marico.

Similar is the case in regard to software and services as well.

Individual branding by Network18 and Times groups is noteworthy. While Network18 follows complete individualism in its branding process with not even having similar colours in its different brand logos, the print brands from the Times stable retains the 'Times' part of the mother brand, but not so in its various online properties. Its online brands are being managed by two separate firms—while Indiatimes.com is under Times Internet, its other digital brands are under Times Business Solutions. And the allegiance to the Times mother brands ends with the holding companies—be it its marriage portal SimplyMarry.com or its property portal MagicBricks.com. Maybe it's because of business, ownership and funding issues and the way they’re rolled out rather than a well-thought out thinking or branding strategy.

But the new entrant Reliance ADAG Group follows a mix of mother branding strategy for its entertainment and media business. Its media and entertainment brands start with the mother brand BIG as the prefix—be it Big FM, Big Street or Big TV, or BigAdda, with the only exception being AdLabs, but it's a logical conclusion that going forward AdLabs will be Big Cinema or Big Screens. Anil Ambani and his senior managers realise the value of building a single brand like BIG. Come to think of it, it's a nice brand, easy to remember and everyone wants to be big and also it connotes leadership. I believe this strategy will reap rich dividends with the media snacking consumers big time.

Even internationally, the media baron Rupert Murdoch follows individual branding strategy. While his holding company is News Corp, his Asian television brands are all under the Star brand name, his European and American television properties carry different names. So are his print properties. But will his channels be as successful as they are today, say in our country if he renames them after his highly popular American channel Fox? Will Murdoch rename the Star Network as the Fox Network? More importantly does it merit so and what are the advantages that the brand Fox connote and bring to the table. I have no answers.

So, what is the way out and which way to approach this process? Can we learn from the way Times group has gone about it, or should we go follow Ambani's big push? As I've always said it's my job to raise questions and the experts to find the answers. Maybe we'll soon launch a Pitch TV.