A travel group running seven brands off one team

The problem

A travel group that has grown by adding brands ends up with a specific kind of mess. Each brand has its own site, built at a different time by a different person, on a different platform. Seven sites means seven hosting accounts, seven sets of updates, seven places a price or a phone number has to be changed, and seven ways for something to quietly break.

The obvious fix, collapse them into one brand, is usually wrong. The brands exist because they speak to different audiences, and merging them throws away the reason they work.

What we built

The brands stay separate to the public and share everything the public never sees.

• A shared enquiry pipeline: every brand's forms land in one place, tagged by brand, so one team can work them without logging into seven systems
• Shared destination and guide content, rendered per brand in that brand's own design
• Per-brand identity: colours, typography, imagery and tone are genuinely different, not one theme with the logo swapped
• One hosting and monitoring setup, so a security update happens once rather than seven times

The regulated part

Travel is not a normal e-commerce category. Selling package holidays in the UK means ATOL obligations, and the site has to carry the right financial-protection wording in the right places rather than as an afterthought in the footer.

That constraint shapes the build: the booking journey has to be explicit about what is protected and what is not, and the group's ATOL details have to appear consistently everywhere. This is exactly the kind of detail a generic template will get wrong, and it is a good example of why we ask what industry you are in before quoting.

The one that is not in English

One of the brands, One World Lakbay, is aimed at Filipino travellers and is written in Tagalog rather than translated into it. That distinction matters more than it sounds: machine-translated copy reads as a foreign company guessing, and audiences notice immediately. It is the cheapest lesson in this whole case study, if you are targeting a specific community, the words have to come from inside it.

What we would do differently

Two things. The brands were built at different times on different foundations, and unifying them afterwards was considerably more work than starting from a shared base would have been. If you are planning more than one brand, decide that at the start, retrofitting a shared system onto sites that already exist is the expensive path, and we took it.

The second is that enquiries and email delivery were treated as separate concerns for too long. A form can report success to the customer while the notification quietly fails to send, and nobody finds out until somebody asks why they never got a reply. Every form we build now stores the enquiry first and treats the email as a best-effort second step, so a mail outage can never lose a lead. That change came from this group.

What you can check

All seven sites are live and linked below. Open two of them side by side: they should not look like the same site, and that is the point. What you cannot see from the outside is the single pipeline behind them, which is where the actual saving is.

Related case studies