How much more efficient are the ones you’ve build than energy star? You can add the co2 pounds, trees and vehicle miles saved to your marketing collateral.
e.g. ” Since the Energy Star program began labeling homes in 1995, consumers have cut their energy costs by $1.2 billion and reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 22 billion pounds, which is equal to taking 1.8 million vehicles off the road, EPA says. ”
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20091110/uepa-sticks-energy-star-label-on-millionth-home.htm

The other type are the little guys. These smaller builders tend to stick to one-off homes and smaller condo developments, and tend to have a “style” of architecture that they use repeatedly. Builders like Niklas Homes, Alloy Homes and House Brand have been around long enough and have built enough homes in the inner city that you can almost identify them on sight. Since most of their work is custom, it ain’t cheap. Most are in the $300+/sqft range for a design-build, plus lot. Unfortunately, a well-designed modest home in a decent ‘hood can easily run $1.25M with these builders. Their brand message is basically “Mid-century modern, lots of expensive finishes and a short commute make for happiness. Gimme your wallet.” All this with no window stickers showing energy use or efficiency, and often just built to code [i.e. the minimum standard].

Brand-wise, it’s either good design OR low cost. There doesn’t appear to be a lot of overlap.

http://www.panahome.jp/english/proposing/index.html

Window stickers are inevitable.

The 100k brand was built online without TV ads or billboards, which is great. What is not so great is that everyone’s first comment is, wait, it’s not $100k, it’s $260k. Perhaps in Philly, the Postgreen brand is supplanting 100k, but nationwide, it seems to be still 100k.

Historically, national and global branding has been the norm, but I think the trend in housing is for local branding. Homes are different in different cities because of zoning and the street grid.

I can also make a case for “stealth building” where a company just builds homes and sells them through RE/MAX, or whoever. Not even the NAME of the builder seems to be an issue, just features & location. There are many advantages to this approach:
1. The builder won’t get pigeonholed into a certain style or price range.
2. The builder isn’t perceived to have “deep pockets” for liability.
3. The buyer tends to do more of his own due diligence, which is good.
4. More “exclusivity”. Buyers will pay a little more for a house that is apparently “one of a kind”.

The biggest disadvantage to stealth building is that pre-sales are nearly impossible without a known track record and credibility.

I think firms that produce smaller houses and push the envelope on design are well positioned to thrive by playing where the large builders don’t. Your customer is more interested in the kinds of specs you’re able to provide. You have more flexibility as to where to build, which means you’re selling a house, not proximity to a cul-de-sac. Establishing a brand lets you market over a larger geographic range. I would be surprised not to see tie-ups or even outright acquisitions of smaller firms doing this kind of work by larger firms, who have expertise in sourcing, logistics, marketing, etc., but have to contend with changing design sensibilities, demographics, energy and space constraints.