Branding in Real Estate: Why Your Property Brand Isn’t Selling?

Branding in real estate is more than just a logo or a tagline—it’s the perception, trust, and emotional connection buyers associate with your properties. In today’s competitive market, even high-quality projects can struggle if the brand fails to resonate. Understanding why your real estate brand isn’t selling involves analyzing buyer expectations, emotional appeal, and the alignment of every project with your core brand personality. But as it turns out, there’s a group of consumers destined to keep realty brand managers perplexed (or tearing out their hair) over their conflicting opinions toward brands.

Real Estate Brand extension is a great strategy for a parent brand to leverage existing brand equity and stretch to build even greater equity. If your real estate brand isn’t converting leads into buyers, the issue may not be obvious. Understanding consumer perception is critical for brand managers and real estate developers alike. Research helps reduce confusion, indecision, and subjectivity, but even then, certain buyers can keep marketers scratching their heads with conflicting opinions about your brand.

The personality dimensions associated with real estate brands are increasingly being used as a means of influencing consumer attitudes and consumption. Brands go to great lengths to build and protect their reputation around these dimensions. For example, if a brand is known for its sophistication, then it is important to assess whether a brand extension will enhance its reputation for sophistication or dilute it. Real Estate Brands have different stretch potential and with so much equity at stake, no brand manager wants to get that stretch potential wrong so they turn to consumer research to provide insight.

But what happens when the research suggests that a real estate brand extension enhances and dilutes the brand. This conflict may be evident in the views held by different (or even the same) participants in focus groups or different conclusions drawn from qualitative and quantitative research. Frustrating for sure, but according to a group of academics from the University of Washington, City University of New York and New York University, it should be more surprising when it doesn\’t happen.

Mathur, Jain and Maheswaran have published a series of research experiments showing how consumer beliefs about human personality play a significant role in brand stretch. According to the wider theoretical literature in social psychology, people\’s beliefs about human personality fall into one of two groups:

Human personality is flexible and can change over time (also known as incremental orientation); or Human personality is fixed and does not change over time (also known as entity orientation).

These beliefs still apply when it is a brand (as opposed to a person) under consideration. So in general, when asked to consider brand personality, consumers with an incremental orientation will let a brand stretch further than consumers holding an entity orientation.Building on this, Mathur and his colleagues looked more closely at what happened to brand personality impressions for brand extensions with good fit and poor fit. In one study 150 participants considered Cheerios brand extensions into granola bars (good fit) or frozen dinners (poor fit). As would be expected the participants with an incremental orientation altered their impression of the Cheerios brand personality and those with an entity orientation did not.

But here’s the interesting thing. The granola bar brand extension was seen to dilute Cheerios’s level of sincerity whereas the frozen dinner was seen to enhance it. Why? The incremental group felt Cheerios would have to put more effort into frozen dinners compared to granola bars where it already had considerable category experience. According to Mathur and colleagues, high amounts of effort involved in change, is something people with an incremental orientation value.

Brand Extensions Can Backfire

Brand extensions are often seen as a shortcut to growth. For real estate developers, this could mean launching a new residential segment, branching into commercial spaces, or experimenting with co-living or serviced apartments. While the idea is to leverage existing brand equity, a misaligned extension can confuse buyers, dilute your brand, and even reduce trust among long-term clients.

For example, a luxury developer known for high-end apartments—like Lodha or DLF—venturing into budget housing without a clear positioning strategy may risk undermining its reputation for exclusivity. Buyers accustomed to associating the brand with premium finishes, superior amenities, and prestige may perceive the extension as inconsistent or “out of character,” which can reduce perceived value across all offerings.

Similarly, a developer known for sustainable and eco-friendly projects, such as Godrej Properties, expanding into projects that compromise on environmental standards can erode credibility. Even if the new project is profitable or technically successful, the long-term brand perception may suffer.

The risks are not limited to perception alone. Poorly planned extensions require substantial investment in marketing, design, and construction. If the project underperforms, it can create financial strain and negative publicity, further affecting the parent brand.

To avoid backfire, real estate brands must assess:

• Alignment: Does the new segment match the parent brand’s core identity?

• Buyer Expectations: Will your existing buyers accept this extension?

• Market Positioning: How will the extension affect the perception of your other projects?

In short, brand extensions can be powerful, but in real estate, misalignment can cost more than just money—it can cost your brand’s credibility and trust.

Personality and Perception Matter

Every real estate brand carries a distinct personality that shapes how buyers perceive it. This personality might be luxurious, family-friendly, sustainable, innovative, or community-focused. For instance, DLF conveys sophistication and premium living, while Brigade Group emphasizes lifestyle-oriented, family-friendly communities. The way buyers interpret this personality strongly influences their decisions and determines how well new projects are received.

Research in brand psychology highlights that buyers have differing beliefs about brand flexibility. Some view a brand’s personality as fixed, expecting consistency across all offerings. For example, clients associating Lodha with ultra-luxury residences may resist budget housing or commercial extensions, seeing them as inconsistent with the brand’s identity. Others perceive a brand’s personality as flexible and are open to unconventional or innovative projects, appreciating efforts to innovate, diversify, or expand offerings.

In real estate, these perceptions matter because buying a property is both an emotional and financial decision. A misalignment between brand personality and new projects can result in confusion, hesitation, or outright rejection, even if the property itself is well-designed or well-located. Conversely, aligning a project with the brand personality strengthens emotional engagement and trust.

Indian developers like Godrej Properties leverage personality alignment by consistently emphasizing sustainability and innovation across projects, ensuring buyers associate the brand with eco-conscious and forward-thinking living.

Good Fit vs Poor Fit in Indian Real Estate

In real estate branding, not all projects are created equal in the eyes of buyers. A good-fit project aligns seamlessly with the parent brand’s identity, reinforcing its reputation and appealing naturally to its target audience. Conversely, a poor-fit project can create confusion, dilute brand perception, or even alienate loyal buyers. Understanding this distinction is critical for Indian developers looking to expand their portfolio without damaging their brand equity.

Take DLF Limited as an example. DLF’s luxury residential projects in Delhi NCR consistently reflect sophistication, premium amenities, and exclusivity. Launching a high-end penthouse or an upscale township enhances the brand’s perception (good fit). However, if DLF attempted to launch low-cost mass housing under the same brand name, buyers accustomed to DLF’s luxury positioning might see it as inconsistent or untrustworthy (poor fit).

Similarly, Lodha Group is synonymous with premium urban living. Their ultra-luxury skyscrapers and integrated townships align perfectly with the brand’s persona. But branching into affordable housing without a sub-brand could weaken their aspirational image.

On the other hand, some poor-fit projects can still resonate if marketed strategically. Godrej Properties, known for sustainability, has successfully launched mid-segment eco-friendly projects that differ from their flagship luxury developments, but careful branding ensures these extensions enhance, rather than harm, the brand.

Emotional vs Rational Buyer Response

Buying property is not purely a logical decision; it’s deeply emotional. Even in high-value real estate markets, buyers often let feelings, aspirations, and personal connections guide their choices. Understanding the interplay between emotional and rational responses is critical for real estate brands struggling to convert interest into sales.

For example, Prestige Group markets not just apartments but lifestyles. Their townships emphasize community spaces, green areas, and social events. While a rational evaluation may highlight costs, floor plans, or ROI, buyers are often drawn by the emotional appeal of belonging, comfort, and prestige. Similarly, Brigade Group leverages experiential marketing, allowing potential clients to visualize life within their communities through show apartments and lifestyle events, creating an emotional connection that influences purchase decisions.

Rational considerations, such as property location, price, amenities, or legal clarity, are important, but emotion often trumps reason in real estate. A buyer may recognize that a project is slightly over budget (rational) but feel that it represents their dream lifestyle (emotional), tipping the decision in favor of purchase.

Even poor-fit projects can succeed if they resonate emotionally. Godrej Properties’ mid-segment eco-friendly initiatives differ from their luxury portfolio, yet emotionally appealing branding—sustainability, safety, and modern living—helps buyers embrace them despite logical doubts.

Practical Implications

Real estate marketers should be cautious when interpreting brand personality studies or buyer feedback. Conflicting signals may reflect the tension between what buyers feel emotionally and what they think rationally. Understanding this can help developers strategically position projects, design marketing campaigns, and decide when to take calculated risks with brand extensions.

The authors replicated these findings in two more studies involving another 462 participants. Guess brand extensions into watches (good fit) or USBs (poor fit) were assessed for their impacts on sophistication. Then, Timberland brand extensions into camping tents (good fit) or sports drinks (poor fit) were assessed for their impact on ruggedness. In both examples, participants with incremental orientations felt the Guess and Timberland brand personality was enhanced when it extended to a category considered a poor fit.

Parent brand personality impressions aren’t the only way to assess the feasibility of brand extensions. In the three studies above, participants also gave an overall evaluation of the parent brand in light of the brand extension e.g. bad-good, negative-positive, favourable-unfavourable. This led to another interesting finding. Personality orientation made no difference to these results. Brand extensions with good fit were evaluated positively and extensions with poor fit were evaluated negatively regardless of whether participants thought personality was flexible or fixed. This was despite the incremental group having enhanced impressions of the brand personality for extensions with poor fit.

So there you have it, a group of consumers who see brand personality being enhanced by an extension but saying it\’s not a good idea for the brand overall. Conversely, they could also see brand personality being diluted by an extension but say it is a good idea for the brand overall.

The most obvious implication this research has for marketing practice is that brand managers should be cautious when interpreting brand personality measures or brand personification results for brand extensions, particularly if they are contradicting other measures. But might there be another interpretation? To me, differences like this could also be about what people\’s heads tell them (overall brand evaluation) versus what their hearts say (brand personality impression). Since, emotion trumps reason when it comes to brand consumption, pursuing a poor fit extension strategy could be successful in strengthening emotional connections with parent brands among a subset of consumers – even though rationally they may disagree with the extension in the first place.

If your real estate brand isn’t selling, the problem may lie in misaligned brand perception, poorly chosen extensions, or unacknowledged buyer psychology. Focus on understanding your buyers’ emotional and rational responses, ensure new projects complement your brand personality, and leverage insights to turn hesitant prospects into loyal clients.