For over two decades, Brand Beckham was singular. Unified. One name, one narrative, one strategy. But families grow. Children become adults with their own paths, their own visions, their own identities. And suddenly, that old architecture—the one that worked so well when everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet—starts to crack.
We sat down with two of our brand experts, Sadie Dyer and Matt Gibbs, to unpack the celebrity drama and explore Beckhams’ brand architecture, when separation becomes strategy and what happens when authenticity disrupts a carefully controlled narrative.
Brooklyn Beckham’s name has been trademarked since birth. Why does this matter for the Beckham family brand?
Sadie: The trademark itself isn’t new — what’s new is how it’s being activated. From the start, Brooklyn wasn’t just a child of famous parents; he was part of a brand system. His name was protected early because it was always tied to Brand Beckham.
What we’re seeing now is a shift from inherited equity to intentional separation. As the children grow into adults, the question becomes whether the family brand can continue to function as a single, unified identity or whether those individual trademarks need to stand on their own.
Matt: This is really about brand architecture catching up to reality. Children, just like brands, change and grow. And the singularity of brand Beckham clearly created friction for Brooklyn who strived for greater independence. The Beckhams have operated monolithically for decades, even as each family member moved into very different cultural and commercial spaces. Trademarking Brooklyn early made sense when the family brand was singular. But as those sub-brands mature, that structure starts to limit growth. If Victoria and David had made the shift earlier to a more deliberate house-of-brands model, Brooklyn’s evolution would feel less like a break and more like a natural evolution.
Can you talk about Brooklyn’s separation from the family? How does it relate to branding?
Matt: The key question isn’t whether he wants to separate, but whether he has enough equity to justify it. Early on, Brooklyn was closely tied to brand Beckham. The Beckham children have appeared as an extension to David and Victoria in everything from Christmas campaigns to a wide range of luxury brands. But that relationship became more complicated. At some point, a sub-brand can actually start to dilute both sides rather than benefit from the connection.
Sadie: We’ve seen this play out in corporate branding, too, like HPE and Solventum separating from parent brands. If Brooklyn wants independence, he has to build something meaningful on his own. Otherwise, he risks being perceived as “just part of the family,” which limits credibility rather than expands it.
Given the public scrutiny, what role does authenticity play?
Sadie: Authenticity is everything. The Beckham brand was built on a controlled narrative, and that narrative is now being tested. Brooklyn taking his wife’s surname, visible family tension and questions around the Netflix documentaries have challenged long-held assumptions about the family. After years in the spotlight, audiences are now reassessing where performance ends, and reality begins.
Matt: And yet, the Beckham brand isn’t stopping. In fact, early data shows that this story has supported brand Beckham rather than hurt it. Victoria Beckham is still launching new products amid the drama, like her new collab with heritage brand Mackintosh and £104 bottles of foundation.
Often, when done right, friction sells over synergy. When handled well, it can be an asset. The Kardashians have shown how conflict, when strategically managed, fuels relevance and storytelling. This moment pushes audiences to re-examine what Brand Beckham actually means, not just what it once represented.
Can Brooklyn return to the brand?
Sadie: That’s a wonderful storyline. I mean, there’s a biblical story about that. Of course, we love that kind of story; that would be huge. A reconciliation of the prodigal son returning. But I think there has to be a change, right? He can’t just go back without something needing to change about their brand and their story.
Does this renewed attention help or hurt Brand Beckham?
Sadie: It helps by reigniting focus. As with the Royal Family, moments of tension prompt people to re-evaluate what the brand represents. It brings the Beckhams back into the conversation and crystallizes their meaning. There’s an opportunity here to redefine the family brand in a more honest, evolved way.
Matt: But that requires ongoing storytelling. Brand Beckham is hard to articulate because it’s been so broad for so long. This moment demands clearer intent and continuous content — not just nostalgia.
Sadie Dyer is Strategy Director and Matt Gibbs is Associate Strategy Director at global brand consultancy Siegel+Gale.