Brand character family: universe of several heroes
When one character is not enough
The decision to build a universe rather than one hero is justified not by the aesthetic desire to 'make it look nice,' but by specific business logic. Here are three situations where this works regularly.
- Product line with different features. Beeline tied each of the five character 'uppers' to a specific tariff option. The game mechanic 'only one can be active' is naturally accepted by the audience because it fits into the familiar logic of 'one hero' games — the uptake of options with characters grew noticeably faster than with previous faceless tariff packages.
- Heterogeneous and large audience. Watsons Asia built a universe with 16 characters based on MBTI personality types. The campaign covered a region with millions of social media followers and gave each personality type 'their own' hero instead of one universal face that would try to appeal to everyone equally.
- A long-term content strategy. If a brand needs a constant stream of stories rather than a one-time advertising campaign, one hero quickly burns out as a source of plotlines. The Malina universe with 13+ characters and a defined location — the cottage village of Sunnydale — expands through new storylines in each collection precisely because each hero has their own role, personality, and tastes: collections are released regularly, and each adds a new twist to the story rather than just a new print.
If none of these three conditions are met — it's not worth expanding the mascot to the universe. It will only increase the budget for supporting the characters without business effect growth.
Family architecture: who is responsible for what
The weak point of most attempts to create a 'team of heroes' is the lack of clear architecture. Characters are drawn, and then functions are assigned to them post-factum, resulting in two or three heroes with the same role of 'cheerful friend'. There are not many working models for building relationships within the universe, and the choice depends on the task.
| Architecture | Principle | Example | When to apply |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central hero + satellites | One character — the entry point, others reveal its facets through journeys and encounters | LANEIGE Walter & Friends: Walter symbolizes water/moisture, the other four represent different aspects of the brand | When a strong main image is needed for marketing, and the others reinforce it without competing for attention |
| Equal team with specialization | Each hero is tied to a separate business function, no hierarchy | Beeline: 5 'upper' options under 5 tariff options | When the product consists of explicit modules/options and a visual choice needs to be represented |
| Hub with satellites by content directions | One central character plus mascots, each covers its own content direction | PresiDENT: Knight Fortrido plus Apple, Strawberry, Chewing Gum, Cola — each has its own WebAR game | When content is released regularly and topics need to be distributed among heroes, not dumped on one |
| Multi-headed composition in one body | Contrast archetypes do not exist as separate characters, but as aspects of one | Gorynych: three heads with different personalities — smart, desperate, kind | When image depth is needed, but the brand is not ready to lead a full-fledged multi-character universe |
| Typological framework | Character roles are determined not by plot, but by a ready psychological system | Watsons: 16 heroes by MBTI | When the audience is very broad and a universal principle of role distribution is needed |
What binds the universe into one whole
Different roles and personalities of heroes are not a reason for visual and semantic dispersion. Without a single framework, the family of characters looks like a random set of merch from different contractors. Several mandatory elements hold the universe together:
- Unified visual code — drawing style, proportions, line thickness, eye shape;
- Common color palette — each hero can have an accent color, but the base palette is the same for all;
- Toponyms and world location — the common setting that provides a reason for shared plots;
- Internal world logic — the rules by which characters interact with each other (who is friends with whom, who opposes whom);
- General value system — that which the entire world exists for, not just a single hero.
Malinovaya is a good example of discipline in this matter: all 13+ characters live in one cottage village of Sunnydale, speak the same recognizable 'brand dialect,' and share common values of family and comfort. This unites the heroes into a single world without losing the individuality of each — the consumer can love one specific character, but recognizes the entire universe at first glance by the background, palette, and speech manner.
Case: how Kakao Friends added a hero to close a gap in the architecture
Kakao Friends launched with seven main characters. Each of them was created with visible 'flaws' — not perfect, but recognizable human, which creates emotional attraction: the user sees a bit of themselves in the hero, not an advertising ideal. Several years after launch, the team added an eighth hero — Ryan — and this was not an attempt to 'revive the franchise with a new face.' Ryan was specifically designed as a 'healer': the missing archetype in the family, which balances the others — calm, reliable, without prominent weaknesses against the bustling and anxious neighbors in the universe. Result: Ryan became one of the most popular heroes in the line by merchandise sales.
This illustrates the main rule of universe expansion: a new character appears not because the brand "wants something new," but because a specific functional gap has been identified in the existing architecture. Before adding a hero, it's important to honestly answer three control questions — and here's how it looked in the case of Ryan:
- What emotion, archetype, or function does the new character fulfill, which no existing character fulfills? Among the seven heroes of Kakao Friends, there was no 'calm anchor' — all played on the contrast of emotions and weaknesses. Ryan filled the role of stability, which was missing.
- Does his visual code, character, or product association intersect at least 50% with anyone from the family? No: Ryan has his own silhouette (a faceless lion without a mane), his own color dominance, and a character that does not repeat anyone from the seven.
- What will change in audience behavior if this hero is not added? A portion of the audience that did not respond to any of the 'nervous' characters would continue to bypass the franchise — it was exactly this segment that Ryan took for himself, as confirmed by merchandise sales after the launch.
Counterexample: when the universe is falling apart
The failure of multi-character universes looks less interesting than success, but occurs more often. Typical situation: a brand launches five to seven characters in one wave, without clear functional distribution among them. After a year, the marketing team cannot clearly explain how hero №3 differs from hero №5 — both are 'cheerful and energetic', and neither is tied to the product nor to any audience segment. Content begins to use one or two of the most sympathetic characters, while the others quietly die in the brandbook, and the budget spent on their development and animation is wasted.
The second common scenario is visual incompatibility: characters were drawn by different contractors at different times, and the drawing style does not even approximately match. On merchandise and in animation, this is immediately perceived as 'different franchises', not one universe, and undermines overall brand trust — the audience perceives style mismatch as carelessness, not as a creative technique.
Metrics and management of the character universe
A family of heroes without a tracking system quickly turns into a set of images for which no one is responsible. Managing the universe must be done the same way as managing a product portfolio — by metrics for each hero separately, not by the general feeling that 'the characters seem to be working.'
| Metric | What it shows | Measurement tool |
|---|---|---|
| Character recognition | The portion of the audience that associates a specific hero with the brand without a prompt | Recognition surveys, Brand Tracking |
| Conversion by audience segment | How much a 'own' character increases conversion in a specific segment (for example, MBTI type or tariff option) | Google Analytics, cross-functional sales analytics |
| ROI of content per hero | Does a specific hero justify the costs of its content and animation | Internal financial model, linking to merchandise/sales options |
| Frequency of mentions in social networks | Which heroes live in organic audience conversations, and which are forgotten | Social listening (Brandwatch, YouScan and similar) |
| Retention by archetype | Do users tied to a specific archetype stay longer than others | Product analytics, cohort analysis |
Good practice — review this set of metrics once per quarter and remove from active rotation heroes who systematically lose in recognition and ROI, rather than dragging the entire universe cast 'just in case' forever.
Conclusion
The universe of characters is a tool, not a decoration of the brand platform. It is justified when the product line is heterogeneous, the audience consists of clear segments, or the brand needs a constant source of storylines for content. Each new hero must fill a specific gap in the architecture, not appear simply because 'it's time to refresh the franchise.' And even the most diverse family of characters is held together by a few simple things — a common visual code, palette, location and value system, which turns a set of images into a recognizable world. Without these bonds and without metrics for each hero, the universe quickly becomes a costly collection of merch, not a functioning brand asset.
When one character is not enough
The decision to build a universe rather than one hero is justified not by the aesthetic desire to 'make it look nice,' but by specific business logic. Here are three situations where this works regularly.
- Product line with different features. Beeline tied each of the five character 'uppers' to a specific tariff option. The game mechanic 'only one can be active' is naturally accepted by the audience because it fits into the familiar logic of 'one hero' games — the uptake of options with characters grew noticeably faster than with previous faceless tariff packages.
- Heterogeneous and large audience. Watsons Asia built a universe with 16 characters based on MBTI personality types. The campaign covered a region with millions of social media followers and gave each personality type 'their own' hero instead of one universal face that would try to appeal to everyone equally.
- A long-term content strategy. If a brand needs a constant stream of stories rather than a one-time advertising campaign, one hero quickly burns out as a source of plotlines. The Malina universe with 13+ characters and a defined location — the cottage village of Sunnydale — expands through new storylines in each collection precisely because each hero has their own role, personality, and tastes: collections are released regularly, and each adds a new twist to the story rather than just a new print.
If none of these three conditions are met — it's not worth expanding the mascot to the universe. It will only increase the budget for supporting the characters without business effect growth.
Family architecture: who is responsible for what
The weak point of most attempts to create a 'team of heroes' is the lack of clear architecture. Characters are drawn, and then functions are assigned to them post-factum, resulting in two or three heroes with the same role of 'cheerful friend'. There are not many working models for building relationships within the universe, and the choice depends on the task.
| Architecture | Principle | Example | When to apply |
|---|---|---|---|
| Central hero + satellites | One character — the entry point, others reveal its facets through journeys and encounters | LANEIGE Walter & Friends: Walter symbolizes water/moisture, the other four represent different aspects of the brand | When a strong main image is needed for marketing, and the others reinforce it without competing for attention |
| Equal team with specialization | Each hero is tied to a separate business function, no hierarchy | Beeline: 5 'upper' options under 5 tariff options | When the product consists of explicit modules/options and a visual choice needs to be represented |
| Hub with satellites by content directions | One central character plus mascots, each covers its own content direction | PresiDENT: Knight Fortrido plus Apple, Strawberry, Chewing Gum, Cola — each has its own WebAR game | When content is released regularly and topics need to be distributed among heroes, not dumped on one |
| Multi-headed composition in one body | Contrast archetypes do not exist as separate characters, but as aspects of one | Gorynych: three heads with different personalities — smart, desperate, kind | When image depth is needed, but the brand is not ready to lead a full-fledged multi-character universe |
| Typological framework | Character roles are determined not by plot, but by a ready psychological system | Watsons: 16 heroes by MBTI | When the audience is very broad and a universal principle of role distribution is needed |
What binds the universe into one whole
Different roles and personalities of heroes are not a reason for visual and semantic dispersion. Without a single framework, the family of characters looks like a random set of merch from different contractors. Several mandatory elements hold the universe together:
- Unified visual code — drawing style, proportions, line thickness, eye shape;
- Common color palette — each hero can have an accent color, but the base palette is the same for all;
- Toponyms and world location — the common setting that provides a reason for shared plots;
- Internal world logic — the rules by which characters interact with each other (who is friends with whom, who opposes whom);
- General value system — that which the entire world exists for, not just a single hero.
Malinovaya is a good example of discipline in this matter: all 13+ characters live in one cottage village of Sunnydale, speak the same recognizable 'brand dialect,' and share common values of family and comfort. This unites the heroes into a single world without losing the individuality of each — the consumer can love one specific character, but recognizes the entire universe at first glance by the background, palette, and speech manner.
Case: how Kakao Friends added a hero to close a gap in the architecture
Kakao Friends launched with seven main characters. Each of them was created with visible 'flaws' — not perfect, but recognizable human, which creates emotional attraction: the user sees a bit of themselves in the hero, not an advertising ideal. Several years after launch, the team added an eighth hero — Ryan — and this was not an attempt to 'revive the franchise with a new face.' Ryan was specifically designed as a 'healer': the missing archetype in the family, which balances the others — calm, reliable, without prominent weaknesses against the bustling and anxious neighbors in the universe. Result: Ryan became one of the most popular heroes in the line by merchandise sales.
This illustrates the main rule of universe expansion: a new character appears not because the brand "wants something new," but because a specific functional gap has been identified in the existing architecture. Before adding a hero, it's important to honestly answer three control questions — and here's how it looked in the case of Ryan:
- What emotion, archetype, or function does the new character fulfill, which no existing character fulfills? Among the seven heroes of Kakao Friends, there was no 'calm anchor' — all played on the contrast of emotions and weaknesses. Ryan filled the role of stability, which was missing.
- Does his visual code, character, or product association intersect at least 50% with anyone from the family? No: Ryan has his own silhouette (a faceless lion without a mane), his own color dominance, and a character that does not repeat anyone from the seven.
- What will change in audience behavior if this hero is not added? A portion of the audience that did not respond to any of the 'nervous' characters would continue to bypass the franchise — it was exactly this segment that Ryan took for himself, as confirmed by merchandise sales after the launch.
Counterexample: when the universe is falling apart
The failure of multi-character universes looks less interesting than success, but occurs more often. Typical situation: a brand launches five to seven characters in one wave, without clear functional distribution among them. After a year, the marketing team cannot clearly explain how hero №3 differs from hero №5 — both are 'cheerful and energetic', and neither is tied to the product nor to any audience segment. Content begins to use one or two of the most sympathetic characters, while the others quietly die in the brandbook, and the budget spent on their development and animation is wasted.
The second common scenario is visual incompatibility: characters were drawn by different contractors at different times, and the drawing style does not even approximately match. On merchandise and in animation, this is immediately perceived as 'different franchises', not one universe, and undermines overall brand trust — the audience perceives style mismatch as carelessness, not as a creative technique.
Metrics and management of the character universe
A family of heroes without a tracking system quickly turns into a set of images for which no one is responsible. Managing the universe must be done the same way as managing a product portfolio — by metrics for each hero separately, not by the general feeling that 'the characters seem to be working.'
| Metric | What it shows | Measurement tool |
|---|---|---|
| Character recognition | The portion of the audience that associates a specific hero with the brand without a prompt | Recognition surveys, Brand Tracking |
| Conversion by audience segment | How much a 'own' character increases conversion in a specific segment (for example, MBTI type or tariff option) | Google Analytics, cross-functional sales analytics |
| ROI of content per hero | Does a specific hero justify the costs of its content and animation | Internal financial model, linking to merchandise/sales options |
| Frequency of mentions in social networks | Which heroes live in organic audience conversations, and which are forgotten | Social listening (Brandwatch, YouScan and similar) |
| Retention by archetype | Do users tied to a specific archetype stay longer than others | Product analytics, cohort analysis |
Good practice — review this set of metrics once per quarter and remove from active rotation heroes who systematically lose in recognition and ROI, rather than dragging the entire universe cast 'just in case' forever.
Conclusion
The universe of characters is a tool, not a decoration of the brand platform. It is justified when the product line is heterogeneous, the audience consists of clear segments, or the brand needs a constant source of storylines for content. Each new hero must fill a specific gap in the architecture, not appear simply because 'it's time to refresh the franchise.' And even the most diverse family of characters is held together by a few simple things — a common visual code, palette, location and value system, which turns a set of images into a recognizable world. Without these bonds and without metrics for each hero, the universe quickly becomes a costly collection of merch, not a functioning brand asset.
Recent articles
MegaFon, BMW, VTB and more 240+ companies. See how it looks in the showcase reel:
Our branding agency is approached to order:
Branding agency services
