Holding company corporate websites: one design system, one performance budget, many companies
In a holding structure the digital problem is rarely the quality of one site — it is the inconsistency between them. We put the brand architecture decision in writing, establish one design system, one performance budget and one schema architecture across the group and its subsidiaries, and build the investor and corporate communications content sets on top of that base.
Why is the digital problem in a holding never the quality of a single website?
Because a group does not own one website; it owns a cluster of sites that grew independently of each other. When every subsidiary commissions its site in a different year, with a different budget and a different supplier, the design language, the performance level, the accessibility status and the structured data architecture all diverge. What is left is a group with no single comparable measure to report on.
The three questions below describe the structural gaps we meet most often in multi-company groups. None of them is a matter of taste: each one is a gap in decision-making and ownership.
How is the inconsistency between group and subsidiary sites measured?
On five measures: mobile performance score, largest contentful paint, WCAG 2.1 AA check result, structured data error count, and whether the group identity is visible on the page at all. When the same measurement is applied to every subsidiary, the table becomes readable at a glance and the discussion stops being a matter of opinion.
Those five measures form the first measurement table of the paid multi-site engagement. Because the identical measurement is applied to every subsidiary, the result is not a view but a comparable data set, and the answer to “which company do we start with?” falls out of that table. The free digital asset audit, by contrast, covers a single site address and contains no comparison across subsidiaries.
What happens digitally when no brand architecture decision is made?
When the group does not decide, each subsidiary decides for itself. One puts the group logo in the top corner, another leaves it out entirely; one moves to a separate domain, another stays on a subdomain. Search and generative engines cannot infer from that how many companies the group contains or how they relate. A written brand architecture decision removes the ambiguity.
Where does the cost accumulate when subsidiaries buy from separate suppliers?
Cost accumulates in repetition, not in the first build. The same component — a news list, a document archive, a contact form, a multilingual structure — is redesigned, recoded and retested at every subsidiary. Once a shared design system exists, that work is done once, and the next subsidiary site starts from the existing system rather than from an empty page.
75%
The percentile of page loads that must meet the threshold before a Core Web Vitals metric is assessed as “good”. Assessment is made per URL: one good site in the group does not rescue the next one.
Source: Google web.dev — Defining the Core Web Vitals metrics thresholds (opens in a new tab) · Accessed: 29 July 2026
For the metric definitions, the difference between field and lab measurement and the remediation method, see the Core Web Vitals guide.
Who makes this decision inside a holding, and what do they look at?
Not one person. Corporate communications looks at brand consistency and publishing speed; investor relations at the accuracy of the document archive; group IT at domain and account ownership; procurement at contract, copyright and exit clauses. The subsidiary managing director, meanwhile, wants to be sure their own commercial priorities do not disappear into a group template.
| Decision maker | The question they ask | The evidence they want |
|---|---|---|
| Corporate communications director | Does the group identity appear the same way on every subsidiary site, and how many hours does it take me to publish an announcement? | The design system file, the subsidiary variant rules and the steps of the publishing flow |
| Investor relations manager | Are the financial reports, general assembly documents and disclosure archive live in their correct versions? | Document archive architecture, version and date visibility, accessible file rules |
| Group IT director | Who are the domains, certificates and accounts registered to, and how are the permissions distributed? | Digital asset inventory, ownership table and permission model |
| Subsidiary managing director | If we move to the shared system, will the things I tell my own customers fall into the background? | The separation of the invariant layer from the subsidiary-specific layer, with a sample variant |
| Group procurement | Who owns the source code, the design and the accounts, and what is handed over if we part ways? | Contract scope, copyright and exit clauses — written out under How We Work |
| Sustainability / compliance lead | Are the reports and policy documents presented in a searchable and accessible form? | Document information architecture and the WCAG 2.1 AA check result |
The reason those six questions are best answered by a single supplier is operational, not commercial: when the team that writes the design system is not the team that opens it to search and answer engines, inconsistency between subsidiaries belongs to nobody. The full reasoning is on the Why Baki Bilisim page.
Which combination of services is right for a holding?
The core combination is four services: digital transformation consulting, brand identity, corporate website delivery and structured data. Core Web Vitals is added for group-level measurability, SEO and GEO for visibility. Every service can also be bought on its own; the table below is a recommended sequence, not a package.
| Step | Need | Service | Why in this position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Asset inventory, ownership table and a prioritised roadmap | Digital Transformation Consulting | Budget cannot be allocated correctly until the group knows how many domains and sites it actually owns |
| 02 | The brand architecture decision and the design system that binds the subsidiaries | Corporate Brand Identity | Every site built before the shared layer exists widens the divergence by one more company |
| 03 | Building the group site and the subsidiary templates | Corporate Website Development | A template system lowers the unit cost as the number of subsidiaries grows |
| 04 | Making the group-subsidiary relationship machine-readable | Structured Data (Schema) | The entity relationship has to ship with the site; a graph bolted on afterwards stays inconsistent |
| 05 | One performance budget across the group, with regression protection | Core Web Vitals and Performance | Without a written budget, subsidiary sites become heavy again within a year |
| 06 | Visibility on corporate, investor and careers queries | Enterprise SEO | It produces meaningful results only once the technical base is in place |
| 07 | The group being described correctly by AI assistants | GEO — Generative Engine Optimization | Without entity clarity, generative engines confuse one subsidiary with another |
| 08 | Dealer, branch and facility pages for multi-location subsidiaries | Dealer and Branch Network Management | Needed only for subsidiaries that actually run a network; not applied group-wide |
The full service list and scope matrix are on the Services page. Depending on what each subsidiary does, the requirements described on the manufacturing, export industry, retail chain and franchise network pages also come into play.
What must a holding and its subsidiary sites satisfy?
Five conditions: the brand architecture decision is written down; the domain and redirect strategy is defined; the group-subsidiary relationship is expressed in structured data; the design system, performance budget and accessibility rules apply to every site; and corporate communications content can be published from within the template in minutes.
How do brand architecture options translate into digital structure?
There are three basic models. In a monolithic structure the subsidiaries carry the parent name and live as directories on one domain. In an endorsed structure the subsidiary has its own name while the group signature stays visible. In an independent structure the brands are separate and only the technical base is shared. The choice follows buying behaviour.
| Model | What it means | Domain structure | Design system | Structured data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monolithic | Subsidiaries are known by the parent name and carry no separate brand identity | One domain, directory-based sections | A single variant, no deviation | One Organization; business units are defined as pages |
| Endorsed | The subsidiary has its own name, with the group visible as endorser | Subdomain or separate domain, with a visible group signature | Shared core plus a subsidiary colour and logo variant | Subsidiary Organization nodes linked with parentOrganization |
| Independent | Brands are positioned separately and the group name stays in the background | Separate domains, limited cross-linking | Only the technical base is shared: budget, accessibility, component behaviour | Separate graphs; the relationship is stated with subOrganization on the group site only |
None of the three models is superior to the others. The deciding question is this: when your customer buys, do they search for the group name or the company name? If the answer is the group name you move towards monolithic; if it is the company name you move towards independent; if both play a role, the endorsed model fits. The scope of the brand architecture work is described on the Corporate Brand Identity page.
How is domain strategy decided: directory, subdomain or separate domain?
The choice derives from brand architecture, never the other way round. A directory structure shares the group's accumulated authority and is the cheapest to operate. A subdomain requires separate management but preserves the group link. A separate domain gives maximum independence; in return each brand builds its visibility from zero and the operational load multiplies.
-
group.com/companies/energy/
Directory — monolithic model · single administration, shared authority, lowest operational load
-
energy.group.com
Subdomain — endorsed model · separate publishing calendar, preserved group link, medium operational load
-
example-energy.com
Separate domain — independent model · full independence, visibility from zero, highest operational load
The real risk here is the half-finished migration: a subsidiary is moved to a separate domain, the pages at the old address are deleted without permanent redirects, and years of accumulated visibility disappear. A domain change is always planned together with a permanent redirect map, an updated sitemap and a structured data correction.
How is the group-subsidiary relationship expressed in structured data?
Every company is defined with its own stable identifier and linked in both directions: the group node lists its subsidiaries with subOrganization, and each subsidiary node points back with parentOrganization. Search and generative engines can then read how many companies the group contains, which company makes what, and which domain is the official source, without guessing.
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@graph": [
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example-holding.com/#organization",
"name": "{HOLDING NAME}",
"url": "https://example-holding.com/",
"sameAs": ["https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...", "https://www.linkedin.com/company/..."],
"subOrganization": [
{ "@id": "https://example-energy.com/#organization" },
{ "@id": "https://example-holding.com/companies/logistics/#organization" }
]
},
{
"@type": "Organization",
"@id": "https://example-energy.com/#organization",
"name": "{SUBSIDIARY NAME}",
"url": "https://example-energy.com/",
"parentOrganization": { "@id": "https://example-holding.com/#organization" },
"address": {
"@type": "PostalAddress",
"addressLocality": "İzmit",
"addressRegion": "Kocaeli",
"addressCountry": "TR"
}
}
]
}This is an example; company names, domains and address fields are filled with real data. For @id design, graph architecture and the validation method see the Schema.org guide, and for term definitions the glossary.
What does the investor relations and corporate communications content set cover?
Two sets are built for two different readers. On the investor side: shareholding structure, board, financial reports, presentations, general assembly documents and the disclosure archive. On the communications side: press room, announcement archive, brand assets, spokesperson details and contact points. Every document carries its version and its date on the surface.
For listed companies the scope of this section is set by capital markets regulation, and the final content list is agreed with your legal and compliance team. Our responsibility is not to interpret regulation but to make sure the agreed content is published accurately, searchably, accessibly and in an indexable form: a file naming convention, visible version and date, an HTML summary alongside the PDF wherever possible, an archive that can be browsed by year, and document lists that work with a keyboard.
How are sustainability, ESG and the press room structured?
Sustainability content is not compressed into a single PDF. The report stays downloadable, but the headline commitments, targets and progress indicators are also published as HTML pages so that search and answer engines can read them. The press room consists of an announcement archive, downloadable brand assets and a verified contact point.
A journalist or an analyst is almost always looking for the same three things: the date of the latest announcement, who is authorised to speak, and where the high-resolution logo and imagery can be downloaded. All three belong on one page, no more than two clicks from the entry point.
How many minutes does it take to publish a statement during a crisis?
In a prepared structure the answer is measured in minutes. That requires three things: the statement exists as a predefined template block, publishing rights are not tied to one individual, and the group site and the relevant subsidiary site can publish simultaneously. If the structure is not ready, the time becomes whatever it takes your supplier to answer the phone.
Crisis communications capability is therefore not a copywriting exercise but an architecture and permissions exercise: a template block, at least two authorised publishers, a pre-written announcement skeleton and a post-publication checklist. Response and intervention times are written into the service level clauses on the How We Work page.
| Requirement | Acceptance criterion | How it is verified |
|---|---|---|
| Written brand architecture decision | Model, domain structure and group signature rule defined for every subsidiary | Brand architecture document plus a per-subsidiary conformance check |
| Shared design system | Invariant layer and subsidiary-specific layer in separate files, handed over as code | Review of the token files and comparison of the subsidiary variants |
| Group-wide performance budget | Mobile LCP < 1.8 s and CLS < 0.05 on every site | Per-site Lighthouse measurement compared against field data |
| Accessibility level | WCAG 2.1 AA on every site; document archives navigable by keyboard | WCAG 2.1 AA checklist and an end-to-end keyboard pass |
| Group-subsidiary entity graph | Two-way relationship defined, zero validation errors across all sites | Rich Results Test, Schema.org validator and Search Console reports |
| Domain and redirect map | Every active, parked and retired domain listed with its redirect defined | Digital asset inventory plus a redirect chain check |
| Document archive architecture | Version, date and file format visible on every document; archive browsable by year | Review of the archive pages and an indexation check |
| Rapid publishing capability | Announcement template defined, at least two authorised publishers, simultaneous publishing possible | A publishing drill and the permission model record |
| Ownership and handover | Domains, certificates, accounts and source code registered in the group's name | Ownership table and the contract's handover clauses |
What is measured at group level in holding digital work?
Six axes: the share of subsidiary sites meeting the performance budget, the accessibility conformance rate, the structured data error count, the number of digital assets with unclear ownership, visibility on corporate and investor queries, and the time it takes an announcement to go live. Measurement is done per subsidiary and aggregated at group level.
| Measurement | What it shows | Tool | Rhythm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance budget conformance | How many sites in the group meet the defined thresholds | Per-site Lighthouse measurement plus CrUX field data | Monthly |
| Accessibility conformance rate | How many sites and templates pass the WCAG 2.1 AA check | Automated audit plus manual keyboard and screen reader checks | Quarterly |
| Structured data error count | Whether the group-subsidiary relationship is being read without errors | Rich Results Test plus Search Console enhancement reports | After every release |
| Assets with unclear ownership | The number of domains, accounts and certificates with no recorded owner | Digital asset inventory comparison | Every six months |
| Corporate and investor query visibility | Impressions and clicks on the group name, subsidiary names and investor queries | Search Console query report | Monthly |
| Time to publish an announcement | Elapsed time from approved text to live on the group and subsidiary sites | Publishing log and drill measurement | After every announcement |
4.5:1
The minimum contrast ratio WCAG 2.1 AA requires for normal-size text. The most concrete benefit of a single design system is that this threshold is solved once and then holds across every subsidiary site.
Source: W3C — WCAG 2.1, Success Criterion 1.4.3 (opens in a new tab) · Accessed: 29 July 2026
What we do not promise
- A specific ranking position for the group name or any subsidiary name.
- Interpretation of capital markets regulation and compliance responsibility — that belongs to your legal and compliance team; we are responsible for publishing the agreed content correctly.
- Control over the internal decision cycles and approval speed of the subsidiaries.
- The output of generative AI tools — those outputs are not deterministic; what we measure is machine readability and citability.
Every value we measure and publish appears with its measurement date on the Proof page.
The six questions holdings and group companies ask most often
How should holding and subsidiary websites be separated?
The split is a brand architecture decision, not a technical one. The holding site addresses investors, regulators, journalists and candidates; the subsidiary site addresses that company's customers. Because the audiences differ, the content sets diverge.
The rule we apply is simple: if the reader of a page is evaluating the group as a whole, it belongs on the holding site; if the reader is buying one company's product or service, it belongs on the subsidiary site. Corporate governance, sustainability reporting and investor content are consolidated at group level, while products, catalogues, dealer information and technical documents stay with the subsidiary.
Can one design system fit every company in the group?
A design system is not a uniform appearance. We separate the invariant layer from the per-company layer: grid, type scale, spacing rhythm, component behaviour, accessibility rules and the performance budget stay shared, while brand colour, logo, imagery and tone are defined in the subsidiary's own token file.
A food company and a machinery manufacturer can therefore share one codebase without looking alike. Because the shared layer is handed over as code, the next subsidiary site is not built from zero — it is built on top of the existing system.
What belongs on an investor relations page?
The minimum set is: shareholding and capital structure, board and executive management, articles of association, an archive of financial reports and presentations, general assembly documents, corporate governance compliance information, an investor contact point and a disclosure archive.
For listed companies the scope of this section is determined by capital markets regulation, so the final content list is agreed with your legal and compliance team. On the technical side, what matters is that each document shows its version and date, and that the archive stays searchable and indexable.
What if subsidiaries already have their own agencies?
Existing agencies do not have to be replaced. The model we apply is to define the group's shared technical base and let the existing teams work on top of it: the design token file, the performance budget, the accessibility rules and the schema architecture are written at group level, while implementation can stay with the subsidiary's own team.
Acceptance criteria become a pre-launch checklist. This creates a measurable common level without terminating contracts, and it means the group does not start from zero every time an agency changes.
How is shared digital governance established?
Through four components: a digital asset inventory (domains, sites, apps, accounts and their owners), a written standards set (design system, performance budget, accessibility and schema rules), a pre-launch acceptance checklist and a regular reporting rhythm.
Building the inventory is usually the step that produces the most surprises, because in most groups no single document records which domain is registered to whom. Governance is measured by the falling number of assets with unclear ownership, not by the number of meetings held.
Do you work with holdings headquartered outside Turkey?
Yes. Work is delivered remotely and English is the working language for documents, workshops and reports; Turkish is used where a subsidiary's local team needs it. Our office is in İzmit, Kocaeli, so on-site sessions are practical for group companies with operations in Turkey.
Scope, acceptance criteria, reporting cadence and the handover terms are identical regardless of where the group is headquartered, and are written into the contract before work begins.
For the other segment pages see Industry Solutions, and for how the inventory and maturity assessment are run see Digital Transformation Consulting.
See the measured state of one of your group or subsidiary sites within five working days.
The audit is free and creates no obligation to work with us. It covers a single site address, and the report itemises findings on AEO answerability, AI crawler access, lab-measured Core Web Vitals, structured data validity and accessibility (automated scan).
We work with corporate-scale, multi-location or multilingual organisations. One-off small jobs fall outside our scope; in that case we point you to smaller studios.