Five verticals, one brand,
five different voices.
Catalis sells government technology across five distinct verticals, each with its own buyer, its own procurement path and its own history. One brand sat above them and none of them sounded like it.
The situation,as it arrived.
Five verticals is five markets. Each had built its own voice for good reasons — a county clerk and a state agency do not buy the same way — and the result was a parent brand that no vertical was actually using.
In government procurement that costs more than it would elsewhere. Evaluators encounter the company through whichever vertical is nearest their remit, and a portfolio that cannot demonstrate coherence looks like an acquisition roll-up rather than a platform.
Four moves,in the order they happened.
Find what is genuinely shared
Architecture work to establish what is true across all five verticals and what belongs to one, which is the only durable basis for a parent brand that the verticals will use.
Cohesive messaging, per vertical
Each vertical's message written to its own buyer inside the shared structure, so specificity survives and the company still adds up.
Build one asset system
A shared asset system across all five so the brand is applied the same way without every vertical commissioning its own version of everything.
Make it operable
Governance for who owns what, because five teams and one brand is a process question as much as a design one.
Everything thatleft the building.
- Unified brand architecture across five verticals
- Cohesive messaging per vertical
- Shared asset system
- Brand governance model
More like this one.One a month.
Written out of engagements rather than off a content calendar, by whichever principal ran the work. No sequence afterwards.
Your situation is not this one.Tell us what it is.
A senior strategist reads it and replies within one business day, with a straight answer about whether we are the right people.