Know-How Exchange : Branding

@KSA. Thanks. That is a valid question indeed. The three are not fully integrated entities. The bigger brand (because of its service spectrum) has a key person who owns City Zen and has a stake in the other 2 brands - the US Diagnostics and US Cardiac. But the team in US Diagnostics and US Cardiac have no stake in City Zen. Thus they are separate entities.

Thus US Diagnostics and US Cardiac are not divisions of City Zen and so that cannot be the solution. In fact both these brands are an offspring of a parent brand that is well entrenched in the USA.

Can you please advise on the light of the above information?

Thanks @KSA. Insightful

WHERE is this campus going to be? What city/state/country/continent?

To be honest, this sounds like a serious branding issue, and it deserves a "deep dive" by a professional. There are a number of factors that should be taken into consideration -- including competition, target audience(s), positioning of each entity, etc.

I would be concerned that, as good as we are at this, it's not possible to address a question like this with a dozen quick-hit responses.

My suggestion: Find an experienced and qualified positioning consultant and retain him or her for this project. You can post a project in the Hire an Expert section of this website, or you can look through the profiles of the leading experts on this forum. Or, if you prefer, contact me directly (using the email address in my profile) and I can refer a few qualified folks for your consideration.

So, Mr. Deep Pockets owns City Zen ... and ALSO has
a stake in US Diagnostics and US Cardiac?

But US Diagnostics and US Cardiac have no stake in
City Zen ... and both these brands are an offspring of a parent brand that is well entrenched in the USA?

Yes?

And people wonder why American healthcare needs reform!

The problem here is that the entire conversation so far has been about marketing and branding. All veiled hints of who owns what ... and the unspoken of shareholder return that goes with this ownership as well, I'm sure.

This isn't branding. It isn't marketing: it's a fiasco.
A side show. And potentially, a PR train wreck.

It's too bad the money that's being wasted on branding (yes, your read that correctly) isn't instead being invested in affordable care for the people that need it most, or invested in some other, worthy endeavor, because this would reduce some of the potential PR pitfalls here.

The critical things about the real issue here of positioning is care ... health care ... for people going into hospital. Sick people! So why not go back to basics and focus on them? In terms of naming, the moniker "City Zen" is nonsense: it's relevance to healthcare would appear to be zero.

At the moment, all this talk about brands is crap.

FIRST, you need to position the services being offered. Then, you use this positioning to condition people's thinking about the function of the service.

It's THIS—the positioning of the service and the conditioning of people's thinking—that creates the brand, not talk of shares in this or interests in that.

I agree with Michael.

Thanks @mgoodman, we have on board an excellent resource and we are in the process of conducting an in depth research. However, this exercise is to arrive at different perspective The way @KSA has contributed is useful and has a pointer. Thanks for the help and perhaps we can collaborate on future projects.

@Gary Bloomer from a philosophical point you are right. Too bad it does not give me the direction that I was seeking. Thanks.