In this study the relationship between three companies brand strategies and business strategies were investigated based on Aaker’s view on brand architecture. The concept and its strategies are characterized by the driving roles brands possess. At the top of the spectrum, “House of Brands” allows the brands to have the entire driver role which decreases moving downwards on the spectrum, first comes “Endorsed Brands” where the master brand has a little driver role, followed by “Subbrands” where the master brand and the subbrand share the driver roles. At the bottom “Branded House” strategy can be found, it is characterized by allowing the master brand to have the entire driver role. Considering (Porter, 1998) and his three generic strategies, three companies: Colgate-Palmolive Company, Kellogg’s, BMW Group and their relationship between brand and business strategy was investigated. All of these three companies are characterized by possessing leading roles within their industries where they operate. All three companies, BMW Group, Kellogg’s and Colgate-Palmolive Company differentiate themselves with help of the brand strategies. In the Kellogg’s case, except the “House of Brands” strategy, they also use “Endorsed Brands” and “Subbrands”. The BMW Group applies “House of Brands” and “Branded House” to achieve differentiation. When it comes to Colgate-Palmolive Company, the main difference is that, both BMW Group and Kellogg’s achieve differentiation through applying several brand strategies. Colgate-Palmolive Company’s differentiation efforts is limited to the “House of Brands” strategy. Despite their different choices of brand strategies the study shows that each company achieves differentiation. Furthermore, the study shows that one differentiation can also be achieved by implementing a single brand strategy, as in the case with Colgate-Palmolive Company. However, the study shows that each of the investigated companies succeeds to target the desired segments and position their offerings on specific attributes.

The microbrewery industry is the fastest growing industry in Sweden. In seven years, the industry has grown by 832 percent. The dramatic increase of microbreweries has led to a highly competitive business environment for these entrepreneurs. This calls for microbreweries to develop strategies for how to stand out in this increasingly competitive environment, i.e., create competitive advantages. However, previous studies have shown that craft entrepreneurs do not strive to achieve traditional economic objectives as the competitive strategy research field suggest that companies have. Hence, traditional competitive strategies may not be applicable for these entrepreneurs. The purpose of this study was therefore to develop an understanding how motivational factors affect craft entrepreneurs’ competitive strategy. To fulfill the purpose, we conducted a case study on microbrewers within the northern region of Sweden. We used a qualitative research methodology where we conducted semi-structured interviews. Seven microbreweries participated in the study. We found that craft entrepreneurs’ motivations for why they started and maintained their microbreweries were mainly because of their passion and interest for the craft and therefore this was their primary objective. However, they perceived profit as a necessity that would enable them to achieve their primary objective. Therefore, we found that these entrepreneurs have dual objectives. We also found that entrepreneurs’ motivations affected their competitive strategies. These entrepreneur’s dual objectives caused some dilemmas when the two objectives contrasted each other. We saw tendencies that this created tension among these entrepreneurs when they had to balance the two objectives of generating profit and achieving objectives related to their passion and interest for the craft. Further, we found that these tensions caused implications on the entrepreneurs’ perception of competitive strategy.  Their perception of competitive strategy differed from traditional theory in three areas. Firstly, they had a resistance to grow their businesses. Secondly, they had a resistance for product/market development. And lastly, they experienced a low level of ambiguity when competing and cooperating simultaneously. In this study, we have been able to deepen the knowledge of craft entrepreneurs and how their motivations affect their competitive strategy. This is a first step in developing an understanding of how additional objectives to profit can cause implications for competitiveness.