P&G: The Benchmark for a House of Brands.

With 80 Brands across 10 categories P&G proves discipline beats size.

In FMCG, everyone wants to be a “house of brands.” Few can actually pull it off. Procter & Gamble is the benchmark, not because it has the biggest portfolio, but because it runs one of the leanest, sharpest, and most disciplined in the business.

One Company, 80 Personalities

P&G owns around 80 individual brands across just 10 product categories. That might not sound like much when rivals like Unilever juggle 400+, but here’s the trick: P&G makes them compete with each other.

Tide, Ariel, and Gain all fight for dominance in fabric care. Pantene, Head & Shoulders, and Herbal Essences go head-to-head in hair care.

It looks messy, but it’s intentional. That overlap keeps shelves saturated and ensures consumers can’t avoid buying a P&G product, even if they switch brands.

Autonomy With Accountability

Each brand gets full autonomy: its own positioning, strategy, target audience, tone of voice. In practice, that means Herbal Essences can play the natural, whimsical card while Head & Shoulders leans clinical and performance-driven, all while boosting P&G’s category dominance.

But autonomy doesn’t mean endless indulgence. P&G runs its brands like a high-performance roster. Fail to deliver? You’re cut. In 2014, P&G divested around 100 brands, including Duracell (to Berkshire Hathaway), Wella (to Coty), and Camay and Zest (to Unilever). The message: perform or leave.

Why It Works

The beauty of the model is simple: no single P&G brand needs to win outright. Collectively, they win the aisle. By having multiple players in the same space, P&G captures more combined share than any one standalone brand could achieve.

And unlike bloated portfolios, P&G’s size is manageable. Leaner than Unilever, sharper in execution, and ruthlessly focused on performance.

The Numbers Don’t Lie

The financials back it up. According to Forbes, P&G’s adjusted net margin sits at roughly 19%. Unilever? Around 10%. That gap isn’t just accounting, it’s strategy. P&G runs fewer brands, but runs them better.

Bottom Line

The lesson here isn’t “own more brands.” It’s the opposite. P&G proves that a house of brands works only if you’re disciplined enough to prune, cut, and demand performance at every tier.

More isn’t better. Better is better.

P&G has turned portfolio management into an art form. By giving its brands autonomy, enforcing discipline, and avoiding the sprawl that trips up competitors, it remains the house of brands everyone else wants to be.