Problem
As the catalogue grows, coherence erodes.
- Thousands of references spread across several brands
- Categories created over the years, with no logic running across them
- Subcategories overlapping between entities
- Product pages that differ from market to market
- Invisible cannibalisation between brands in the same group
In a multi-brand group, the problem is not only internal fragmentation. It is that three distinct brands, with no shared architecture, end up competing with each other: on Google, in the markets, and in customers’ minds.
Complexity is not visible straight away.
It is simply endured.
Most organisations optimise brand by brand, campaign by campaign.
Few structure the architecture that connects them.
Tension
A need for coherence and alignment.
For the Brady Group, the question was not how to improve Seton’s product SEO. It was how to align three distinct brands inside a shared editorial system, without erasing what makes each one recognisable.
That is the point where the project changed in kind.
This is no longer product page optimisation.
This is group-level editorial engineering.
Role
A two-sided project, between governance and performance.
We rewrote the category pages, from a shared template, so that each one balanced the brand’s own discourse against real search intent.
- Audit all content across the three brands, Seton, Signals and Securimed: to map the invisible overlaps and find where search authority was being lost.
- Build a three-tier editorial hierarchy, Gold for authority, Silver for thematic structure, Bronze for product precision: every piece knows what it has to do and at which level it operates.
- Reduce vertical and horizontal cannibalisation: the brands stop competing with each other on the same search intents.
- Harmonise templates by level and by brand: shared structural coherence, a voice of its own for each entity.
- Align production across three languages: writing and translation built into the same system rather than treated as two separate projects.
Editorial governance and search performance were not treated as two separate objectives. They were designed as one system.
Impact
A virtuous trajectory, an environment that scales.
The strongest proof is not a figure.
It is a trajectory.
The work started with Seton: one brand, one market, a defined scope. The architecture held. The contract was renewed, then extended to Signals, then to Securimed. Then the writing scope widened to include translation, a sign that the system was robust enough to absorb a new level of complexity without starting over.
Seven years. Three brands. Three languages. One system, consolidated step by step.
In B2B, a client who widens the scope every year is not doing it out of inertia. They do it because they trust the system, and because it works.
The Brady Group moved from legacy catalogues optimised brand by brand to a group editorial system: coherent, scalable, steerable.
This project did not produce a spike.
It installed an infrastructure.
Is your category-product hierarchy strategic, or inherited?
In multi-brand, multi-language environments, categories drift, content overlaps, and brands cannibalise each other in search results, with no one consciously steering it.
And often the real problem is not technical. It is that a group has grown faster than its editorial architecture.
- With no shared system: each brand optimises in its corner, and the group competes with itself.
- With a group architecture: you steer coherence across the whole, and you grow without rebuilding.