This document summarizes a study that examines how changing a corporate name affects consumer perceptions of the corporation and its products. Specifically, it looks at how rebranding the Guinness corporation as Diageo impacted brand images. The study tested hypotheses about how significantly corporate and product brand images would vary depending on whether the name change was evolutionary or revolutionary. Survey results showed that a revolutionary name change (Guinness to Diageo) significantly affected corporate brand image but not product brand images. Additionally, when the corporate and product brands shared the same name, their images were interdependent and influenced each other. But when they had different names, as with Diageo and Guinness, their images became independent. The findings provide insights into managing

1. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec
DCUBS, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, and
Mary Lambkin
UCD Smurfit School of Business, University College Dublin, Blackrock, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – The paper aims to analyse the effect of abandoning a venerable brand name (Guinness) and all of the reputation value that it embodied in
favour of a new, untested name (Diageo). The paper seeks to examine the extent to which this affects consumers’ perceptions of the product and the
corporation.
Design/methodology/approach – Six hypotheses were tested in the study by surveying corporate and product brand images among a group of
consumers (n ¼ 411) using the Davies et al. Corporate Character Scale.
Findings – The survey establishes that a change of corporate name does affect the perceptions of the corporation but not the products. It also confirms
that image spillovers occur between the corporate and the product levels. Corporate image is derived from product image, and vice versa, when the two
share the same name.
Research limitations/implications – Although the case study approach allows the gaining of a deep insight into a phenomenon, it is at the expense
of generalisability.
Practical implications – The study implies that consumers fail to distinguish between product and corporate brand when the two share the same
name. Managers may neutralise corporate images by attributing a different brand name to the corporation.
Originality/value – The paper seeks to fill the conceptual vacuum in which decisions to adopt a new corporate name and rearrange the brand
architecture seem to be made.
Keywords Case studies, Corporate branding, Brand identity, Brand image
Paper type Case study
An executive summary for managers and executive programme and for consumers’ awareness and images
readers can be found at the end of this article. (Aaker, 1991). A brand name is associated with a set of
attributes and psychological associations which give a brand
its meaning (Keller, 1998). For a company such as Diageo
Introduction
(ex- Guinness), the change of name suggests a move towards
In recent years, change in ownership structure, change in a “house of brands” architecture where corporate associations
corporate strategy, change in competitive position, and are downplayed by maintaining individual names for each
change in the external environment have forced companies product line distinct from the corporate name (Aaker and
to change their name and rearrange their brand architecture Joachimsthaler, 2000).
(Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). This phenomenon has been The first academic issue pertaining to the corporate
labelled rebranding (Griffin, 2002; Kaikati, 2003). The term rebranding phenomenon is to assess the extent to which a
rebranding actually assumes that a brand existed prior to the change of name modifies consumers’ perceptions of the
change of name, as the prefix “re” signifies that the action is in corporate brand over time, that is, to assess the before and
fact performed for the second time. This is frequently the after effects. The second academic issue is to understand the
case, especially when a well-known consumer brand name influence of corporate image on product image, that is, the
(e.g. Guinness, Philip Morris) is being replaced by a new interplay between different levels of the brand architecture.
corporate brand name (e.g. Diageo, Altria). The issue of This is based on the premise that the product and its brand
brand architecture modification and corporate redeployment are integrally related to the corporate brand just as corporate
has been recently addressed (Laforet and Saunders, 2005), associations are thought to impact the perceptions of the
but a model that articulates the effect of brand architecture product (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Fombrun and van Riel,
modification is yet to be elaborated. This is a gap that this 2004; Scholder Ellen et al. 2006).
paper seeks to address. This paper utilises the rebranding context to analyse the
Names are the critical, core sign of the brand; they consequences of modifying the brand architecture on both
constitute the basis for the corporate communications product brand image and corporate brand image. It sets out
to measure the impact of corporate rebranding (as evidenced
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at by a name change) on corporate brand personality as well as
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm on product brand personality. Attitude scales are used to
obtain measures of salient attributes of corporate image.
Images result from weighting the scores on different attributes
Journal of Product & Brand Management to obtain a composite picture.
16/5 (2007) 321– 333
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
The literature section reviews the role of names in
[DOI 10.1108/10610420710779618] connecting the corporation to its stakeholders as well as in
321

2. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
corporate brand building. The methodology section explains Evolutionary rebranding describes a fairly minor development
the use of the Corporate Character Scale (Davies et al. 2004, in the company’s positioning and aesthetics that is so gradual
Chun and Davies, 2006) to assess both product and corporate that it is hardly perceptible to outside observers. For example,
image. After a brief introduction to the case, the results of a Visa International recently revamped its logo to give the
survey comparing the images of a corporation under its company a “fresher, more contemporary feel” (Visa, n.d.). All
current name (Diageo) with images under its previous names companies go through this process over time through a series
(Guinness Ireland Group and GuinnessUDV) are presented. of cumulative adjustments and innovations. Revolutionary
They indicate that consumers’ corporate images change rebranding, in contrast, describes a major, identifiable change
depending on the name of the corporation. Perceptions of the in positioning and aesthetics that fundamentally redefines the
product brand images remain, however, unchanged. The company. This change is usually symbolised by a radical
managerial and academic implications are discussed in the change of name, which would signal to the external audience
last section. that something about the company has changed dramatically.
In sum, we expect that the external perception of the
organisation will vary depending on its name (i.e. Guinness
Conceptual background and hypotheses:
Ireland Group, GuinnessUDV Ireland or Diageo Ireland).
Corporate and brand image: the key role of the name Yet, depending on the degree of change (evolutionary or
Corporate image may be defined in a variety of ways revolutionary), corporate image will be differentially affected.
(Bernstein, 1984; Abratt, 1989; Gray and Balmer, 1998). It is Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are put
sometimes referred to as the global evaluation of a forward:
corporation by an external stakeholder (Dowling, 2001; H1a. Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the
Davies and Chun, 2002). A consensus seems to have emerged case of an evolutionary corporate name change.
around the notion that corporate image is an “overall H1b. Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the
impression formed as a result of a variety of formal and case of radical (revolutionary) corporate name change.
informal signals emanating from the company” (Bernstein,
1984). Among, the formal signals, corporate rebranding is
probably the strongest possible way to signify that something Corporate associations and brand portfolio
in the company has changed (Kapferer, 2002). Indeed, Branding the corporation aims at improving corporate
rebrandings are triggered by structural factors such as reputation by influencing stakeholders’ images of the
internationalisation, mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs, company (Knox, 2004; Madden et al., 2006). Corporate
diversification or divestment (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). reputation depends on a wide spectrum of expectations
Defining a brand as “a name, term, symbol, design or a including financial performance and corporate social-
combination of them” implies that the name forms the responsibility as well as the promise delivered by the brand
essence of the brand concept (Aaker, 1991). The name is a (Fombrun and van Riel, 2004). The degree of synergy
critical, core sign of the brand, the “basis for awareness and between the corporate brand and the product brand depends
communications effort” (Aaker, 1991, 187). Since the name on the brand architecture (Keller, 1998; Varadarajan et al.,
can bring inherent strength to a brand (Kohli and Labahn, 2006). The various relations can be illustrated along a
1997; Klink, 2001); brand names need to be actively managed spectrum from the “branded house” to the “house of brands”,
in order to influence external stakeholders. In a conventional including “endorsed brands” and “subbrands” (Aaker and
branding perspective, the name is an instrument at the Joachimsthaler, 2000). Most companies employ mixed
disposal of the marketing team, who can use symbolism in strategies but it is useful to characterise the two extremes
order to affect consumers’ perceptions of products or for the sake of clarity.
corporations’ attributes (Klink, 2001; Yorkston and Menon, The “house of brands”, in which there is separation
2004). Once launched however, the new name becomes the between the corporate and product brands, avoids “corporate
psychological property of consumers (Lerman and Garbarino, brand” associations that would adversely affect the image of
2002). The same reasoning applies to corporations and the product brand. Reciprocally, at a corporate level, it allows
corporate branding. A corporate name is arguably the most the company to diversify into new product categories without
visible element of a visual identity system (Margulies, 1977; running any risk of diluting its corporate brand equity. P&G is
Melewar and Saunders, 2000). A new name along with a new able to manage brands like Pampers, Iams dog food and Tide
visual identity can help to create brand new associations when laundry powder without damaging the brand equity of either
introduced successfully, as for example, with Lucent product or its own corporate brand equity. On the contrary, if
Technologies, a spin-off of AT&T (Schmitt and Simonson, ´
P&G was, like Nestle, a strong brand, then by endorsing both
1997). Iams and Pampers, it could affect negatively the image of the
Corporate rebranding aims, therefore, at modifying the corporate brand and of the two product brands. Aaker and
stakeholders’ perceptions. Like many corporate branding Joachimsthaler (2000) detail the advantages of a house of
programmes, it may do so by projecting the “company brands strategy from the product brand perspective:
distinctiveness by using the total corporate communication companies should differentiate each brand if a separate
mix (advertising, press conferences and releases, staged media brand can create and own an association, represent a new,
events etc . . .) to impress external audiences” (Schultz and different offering, avoid an association or deal with a channel
Hatch, 2001). A review of rebranding examples indicates, conflict. Consumers may still form their brand images as a
however, that all are not of the same order of magnitude. result of corporate behaviour as they realise that there is a
There appears to be a continuum in rebranding from the concrete business behind the offering (Fombrun and van Riel,
relatively minor, evolutionary modification of the logos and 2004; Dacin and Brown, 2006). Yet, separating the corporate
slogan to the major, revolutionary creation of a new name. brand from its constituent sub-units limits the ability of
322

3. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
corporations to leverage product brand equity – and vice versa Therefore, the same principles apply in reverse for an image
– and it equally reduces the impact of reciprocal adverse spillover from the corporate level to the product level; in
publicity (Laforet and Saunders, 2005). particular for items that are most closely related to corporate
By contrast, in a branded house context, where both associations such as social responsibility. Hence, the following
corporation and products share the same name, the master hypothesis is put forward:
brand is the primary driver for brand associations (Saunders H3b. Product image is significantly influenced by corporate
and Guoqun, 1997). Reciprocally, corporate brands take on image on some specific items in a branded house
values from the product portfolio (Brown and Dacin, 1997) as configuration (same name).
well as from the corporation’s culture and heritage (Aaker,
By corollary, once the corporate brand has been isolated from
2004). The master brand becomes the umbrella for various
its product (via a change of name of the corporation), the
products or services offered. Virgin provides a typical
images of product and corporation will become independent
example: Virgin Cola, Virgin Music, Virgin Airlines, and
from one another. In sum, the images of the corporation will
Virgin Jeans. Other examples include Honda, Philips or
not be derived from the product and vice versa. To capture
Heinz. Corporate brands can be applied to replace multiple,
this notion of corporate brand isolation, the following
complex sub-brand structures to achieve cost efficiencies. In a
hypotheses are put forward:
corporate dominant system, the reputation of the corporation
H4a. Corporate image is independent from product image in
critically influences consumers’ perceptions of the services
a house of brands configuration (different names).
(Knox, 2004). Berens et al. (2005) have demonstrated the
H4b. Product image is independent from corporate image in
role of the corporate brand in consumer product responses.
a house of brands configuration (different names).
Equally corporate images may be principally the result of
consumers’ experience of the brand. In addition, perceptions
of the product brand are also used to evaluate corporate Description of context, the Guinness/Diageo case
reputation. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) suggest that the
synergies between product and corporate brand are stronger The case of Guinness demonstrates the practical problems
in a branded house situation as the master brand contributes and emerging issues relating to the management of brand
to the offering by adding associations that enhance the value architecture. Guinness was a very strong, iconic corporate
proposition, reinforcing the credibility, as well as increasing name with a lengthy heritage and a high degree of positive
visibility and communication efficiencies. emotional attachment (Griffiths, 2004). The rebranding
The degree of synergy between the corporate brand and the corresponded to a change in the brand architecture and
product brand depends on the brand architecture (Keller, marked the transformation from a situation where Guinness
1998; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Aaker and Joachimsthaler, Stout and the St James Gate Brewery were quintessentially
2000; Varadarajan et al., 2006). Based on the literature, a Irish to a situation where the group producing Guinness
relationship between product image and the nature of became a global multi-brand company.
corporate name (same name or different from the product Traditionally, the corporation and its main product shared
name) is expected; that is, a product brand image is affected the same name; Guinness was consequently omni-present in
by a change in brand architecture, and therefore the following Irish life. A high level of goodwill was attached to the name
hypotheses are put forward: Guinness, which was the result of a history of outstanding
H2a. Product brand image will not vary significantly when corporate behaviour both internally and externally. Internally,
the corporate name is not radically changed. Guinness had a paternalistic approach towards its employees.
H2b. Product brand image will vary significantly over time In the late 1800s, the list of benefits for workers was
when the corporate name is radically changed impressive by the standards of the time. Working for Guinness
(modification of the brand architecture). meant wages at 10-20 per cent above the local average,
guaranteed widow’s pensions, and six days paid holidays per
The principle that underpins a strategy where a product and a year, free medical care, homes and education (Byrne 1999).
corporation share the same name is that of brand extension, Externally, Ireland and Guinness developed an entwined
which is to use the image of brands as leverage for enhancing relationship thanks to Guinness’s contribution to Irish life
sincerity. The notion of image spillover consists in leveraging through corporate sponsorship and community involvement.
product brand images and extending those images to the In 1997, Guinness plc merged with Grand Metropolitan to
upper level of the brand hierarchy, i.e. to the corporate brand. form Diageo plc. Like many rebrandings, the adoption of a
Consumers and the general public are generally more in new name was triggered by a change in the financial structure
contact with the brand(s) than with the corporation. As a of the corporation. At the corporate headquarters (in
result, consumers are more likely to form their images of the London), the name change was considered a necessity
corporation through their experiences of the product brand. because of the need to give a name to a new corporate
Because the product and its brand are integrated as giant, which owned a variety of brands all over the world.
constituent elements of the corporate brand and reputation Grand Met-Guinness had operations in 180 markets (Diageo,
(Fombrun and van Riel, 2004), a product image spillover to 1998). The new entity was also involved in a variety of market
corporate image when the two entities share the same name is sectors including spirits, wine and beer, but also packaged
expected: food and fast food which comprised Pillsbury, Totinos Pizza,
H3a. Corporate brand image is strongly affected by product Green Giant, Haagen Daaz and Burger King[1]. The new
image in a branded house configuration (same name). name was to provide a single roof over a house which was now
The studies by Berens et al. (2005), Brown and Dacin (1997) hosting a complex collection of brands. The name “Diageo
and Saunders and Guoqun (1997) have also indicated that plc” was chosen. It combines the Latin word for “day” and
corporate associations might influence product imagery. the Greek word for “earth”.
323

4. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
The issue of whether to rename the business units or not Table I Summary of Hypotheses
had then to be addressed. In 2001, the decision was taken to
integrate the various business units together and, following a H1a Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the case of an
brief internal debate, the executive board of Diageo plc evolutionary corporate name change
decided that the Irish operations would have to change their H1b Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the case of radical
name to Diageo Ireland: (revolutionary) corporate name change
[. . .] the debate was between the heritage of the Guinness name and the H2a Product brand image will not vary significantly when the corporate
necessity to reflect our global brand. But in the end, it was the global aspect name is not radically changed
that prevailed.
H2b Product brand image will vary significantly over time when the
corporate name is radically changed (modification of the brand
The implementation of the change, however, was left to the
architecture)
Irish management. Guinness (Ireland) had already formally
H3a Product image is significantly influenced by corporate image on
merged with United Distillers and Vintners to form
some specific dimensions in a branded house configuration (same
GuinnessUDV. Grand Metropolitan brands were integrated
into the company’s portfolio. The corporate visual identity of name)
GuinnessUDV first demarked itself from the traditional H3b Product brand image is strongly affected by corporate image in a
Guinness identity. In this transition period, a new logo was branded house configuration (same name)
adopted (Figure 1). H4a Corporate image is independent from product image in a house of
In 2001, the two sides of the business were brought brands configuration (different names)
together. The name was subsequently changed to Diageo for H4b Product image is independent from corporate image in a house of
all stakeholders, with the exception of customers (i.e. the brands configuration (different names)
publicans), who continued to deal with GuinnessUDV until
February 2004.
From a brand architecture standpoint, the merger attitudes. Recently, a new scale has been introduced to study
eventually meant that Guinness stout had become only one corporate image called the Corporate Character Scale (CCS)
of the eight global priority brands[2]. Another important (Davies et al., 2004). The CCS is made of 49 traits that are
consequence of the name change is that the corporate identity aggregated around seven dimensions:
(now called Diageo) was no longer promoted directly towards 1 agreeableness;
consumers but indirectly towards the general public via eight 2 enterprise;
key stakeholder groups which included employees, investors, 3 competence;
government, community, media, customers, suppliers, joint 4 chic;
venture partners (JVPs). Corporate communication became 5 ruthlessness;
limited to the topic of responsible drinking and business 6 machismo; and
performance. 7 informality.
Building on the literature on brand extension and corporate
This CCS was used in our research to assess the external
associations, it has been suggested that spillover effects occur
when product and corporation share the same name but do perceptions of the brand, i.e. the brand image.
not occur when the two names are different. All of the This scale was administered to ten groups of undergraduate
hypotheses are summarised in Table I and placed in the business students (n ¼ 433) as part as an in-class exercise.
context of the case under investigation in Figure 2. Respondents were randomly assigned to grade a corporation
How rebranding and brand architecture modification affect (either Guinness, or Guinness-UDV or Diageo) and one of its
consumers’ images of the product and the corporation is the products (Guinness Stout or Smirnoff Ice). The three
question addressed the next section. corporate names, i.e. the traditional name, the name
adopted following the merger, and the new name
corresponded to the three stages of the rebranding process.
Methodology The two products chosen were Guinness Stout and Smirnoff
In marketing and organisational theory, the personification Ice. Smirnoff Ice was chosen because it displays
metaphor has been widely used in developing measurement characteristics dissimilar to Guinness and therefore reflected
scales (Martineau, 1958; Aaker, 1997; Davies and Chun, the breadth of the brand portfolio.
2003). Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics The format of the questionnaire was identical for all
associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997). Although the respondents but the name variables being compared were
definition – and subsequently the Brand Personality Scale arranged in pairwise comparisons, which were rotated in
(BPS) – has been recently challenged (Azoulay and Kapferer, order to evaluate the impact of the change of name and its
2003), brand personality remains the foremost construct used relation to product name. The combinations tested were as
to characterise, compare and evaluate brand values and follows:
Figure 1 Business logos Ireland (1997-2002)
324

5. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Figure 2 Hypotheses in the context of the case
.
Questionnaire1A: Guinness Group Ireland and Guinness equal or in excess of 0.70, in line with what is considered as
Stout (n ¼ 69; n valid ¼ 63). acceptable. The results show that the CCS is a reliable
.
Questionnaire 2A: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Guinness instrument to measure both product and corporate image.
Stout (n ¼ 78; n valid ¼ 77).
.
Questionnaire 3A: Diageo Ireland and Guinness Stout Results
(n ¼ 68; n valid ¼ 64).
.
Questionnaire 1B: Guinness Group Ireland and Smirnoff First, the change of perceptions before and after the
Ice (n ¼ 67; n valid ¼ 65). rebranding (i.e. horizontal dynamics) is analysed for both
.
Questionnaire 2B: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Smirnoff the corporation and the product; second, the vertical
Ice (n ¼ 80; n valid ¼ 76). relationship between the product level and the corporate
.
Questionnaire 3B: Diageo Ireland and Smirnoff Ice level of the brand hierarchy is then investigated.
(n ¼ 71; n valid ¼ 66).
Horizontal dynamics: evolution of corporate and
Groups varied slightly in size due to the difference in product image
attendance for each class. 55 per cent of the respondents were The evolution of the corporate imagery depending on the
male, 98 per cent were aged 18 to 24 and 95 per cent were degree of corporate name change is first explored, followed by
Irish nationals. Missing values were treated according to the a similar investigation of the evolution of product image.
following rules: If brand personality missing values were more
than ten out of a total of 98 traits (49*2; for both product and Evolution of corporate image (H1a and H1b)
corporation), then the case was deleted. Based on this rule, 22 The average estimates for the seven dimensions of the
cases were deleted (n valid ¼ 411). Students who were not corporate personality under the three different names are
familiar with either the company or the product were asked to displayed in Table III and Figure 3. The corporate character
skip the questions pertaining to the unfamiliar product or scale is a five-point Likert scale; for each of the 49 traits,
company. Out of the 22 cases deleted, nine were removed respondents are asked to state whether they strongly agree (1)
because of the absence of answers for the Diageo personality or strongly disagree (5) that the trait describes the product or
questionnaire. corporate personality, which means that three indicates a
In total, 128 valid observations were obtained for the neutral standpoint. A t-test is conducted to find out if there is
Guinness Ireland Group, 153 for Guinness UDV and 130 for a significant difference between the image of the company
Diageo. Smirnoff Ice was evaluated by 207 respondents, and when named Guinness Group, GuinnessUDV and Diageo
Guinness Stout by 204 respondents. and these results are presented in Table III.
Reliability was measured by calculating Cronbach’s alpha Table III shows that the profiles of the corporation under
coefficient for the seven dimensions of the corporate character the two versions of the Guinness name are extremely similar;
scale (Table II). All dimensions for both product and they show no significant differences in rating on the seven
corporate personality produced a Cronbach alpha coefficient dimensions. In contrast, the profile of the image of Diageo
differs significantly from the image of both Guinness UDV
and Guinness Group. Two independent sample t-tests are
Table II Cronbach alpha coefficient per dimensions conducted. The table shows some differences for each
Dimensions Product brand personality Corporate personality
personality dimension for Guinness Ireland Group and
Diageo Ireland. The differences are not significant for
Agreeableness 0.87 0.79 agreeableness, competence or chic (p . 0:05) but there is a
Enterprise 0.85 0.87 significant difference between the mean score for enterprise
Competence 0.78 0.71 (t ¼ 23:186; p , 0:001), ruthlessness (t ¼ 23:658),
Chic 0.73 0.76 machismo (t ¼ 7:372) and informality (t ¼ 6:129) all at
Ruthlessness 0.77 0.81 p , 0:001.
Machismo 0.91 0.83 To evaluate whether knowledge of the rebranding had an
Informality 0.75 0.78 impact on the perception of the company, respondents were
asked to state whether they knew the new name for the
325

6. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Table III Comparison of corporate personality under old and new names
Guinness Guinness Sign. two-tailed Guinness Diageo Sign. two-tailed
Ireland Group UDV Ireland t-test Ireland Group Ireland t-test
Agreeableness 3.3387 3.2418 NS 3.3387 3.3442 NS
Enterprise 2.6345 2.6231 NS 2.6345 2.9264 0.01
Competence 3.6722 3.6648 NS 3.6722 3.7837 NS
Chic 2.6748 2.4959 NS 2.6748 2.7750 NS
Ruthlessness 2.6035 2.5837 NS 2.6035 2.9723 0.01
Machismo 4.0417 3.9412 NS 4.0417 3.2865 0.01
Informality 3.4648 3.3682 NS 3.4648 2.8047 0.01
Figure 3 Personality profile of the corporation under three different The personality dimensions of enterprise, ruthlessness,
names machismo and informality vary significantly. On the
enterprise dimensions, it seems that Diageo has managed to
rejuvenate its image, being perceived as younger, more up-to-
date, innovative, imaginative, and exciting. Within the
agreeable dimension, there may also be some significant
variations. For example, Diageo is perceived as significantly
more open, concerned and socially responsible while
Guinness and GuinnessUDV are perceived as significantly
more agreeable. In other words, there are no significant
differences on the aggregated agreeable dimension but there
are significant differences on some individual items. Both
hypotheses (H1a and H1b) are therefore supported. Images of
the company do not vary significantly when the name change
is evolutionary but images do vary significantly when a
radically new name is introduced.
Evolution of product image (H2a and H2b)
Guinness Ireland Group or GuinnessUDV (n ¼ 281). 64 per In this section, the evolution of product image following a
cent of the respondents were unaware of the new name; 34 change in the brand architecture is analysed. The hypotheses
posit that product brand image will not vary significantly
per cent spontaneously stated that Diageo was the new name.
when the corporate name is not radically changed (H2a) and
A t-test showed no significant differences between the two
that product brand image will vary over time when the
groups. Equally, knowing that Guinness had changed its corporate name is radically changed – modification of the
name to Diageo did not modify the perception of Guinness. brand architecture (H2b). To evaluate whether a change in the
These perceptions were similar to those of respondents who brand architecture may also affect product image, six
did not know about the rebranding and were significantly situations (corresponding to the six questionnaires) are
different on the same dimensions as for respondents who considered.
evaluated Diageo. This means that knowledge of the First, the product image of Guinness Stout is compared
rebranding did not affect the results. depending on its endorser, i.e. Guinness Group,
Diageo has less character than Guinness. The scores for the GuinnessUDV or Diageo. The evolution of Smirnoff Ice’s
new name (Diageo) are higher on enterprise and ruthlessness image is compared under the three same conditions. In order
but lower on machismo and informality. Overall the Diageo to explore the impact of a corporate rebranding on product
brand displayed a very flat, even personality that is rated close image, a one-way analysis of variance among the three groups
to the neutral mid-point. On average, all scores were between is conducted. The three conditions correspond to the three
2.77 and 3.78. Conversely, the Guinness brand displayed stages of the rebranding process. For Guinness Stout, the
stronger character dimensions with the average ranging from variance on each of the seven dimensions under the three
2.60 to 4.04 (Figure 3). In sum, the rebranded corporation conditions is not significant. For Smirnoff Ice, the results are
also not significant for the agreeableness, enterprise,
with a previously unknown new name has a personality more
competence, chic and ruthlessness dimensions. However, for
neutral than with its old product brand name.
the machismo dimensions, there is a statistically significant
On an item-by-item basis, the most significant differences
difference under the three conditions (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 6:61,
between Guinness Ireland Group and Diageo Ireland were
p , 0:005). Equally the perception of informality varies
the following[3]. Guinness Ireland Group was rated significantly depending on the endorser (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 10:25,
significantly more charming, agreeable (þ 0.4), simple, p , 0:001). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
masculine, casual (þ 0.6), tough, easy-going (þ 0.75), indicated that the mean score on machismo was significantly
rugged (þ0.9). In contrast, Diageo Ireland was perceived as different (p , 0:05) between Guinness Group (M ¼ 1:56,
more concerned, socially responsible (þ 0.9), up-to-date SD ¼ 0:67) and Diageo (M ¼ 2:04, SD ¼ 0:81) but not
(þ0.7), achievement-oriented, controlling, snobby, young, between the Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV nor between
´
elitist (þ0.5), innovative and authoritative (þ0.4). GuinnessUDV and Diageo. For Informality, differences of
326

7. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
product image were significant (p , 0:05) between Guinness Corporation is either weak (for GuinnessUDV) or not
Group (M ¼ 2:91, SD ¼ 0:82) and GuinnessUDV significant (for Guinness Ireland Group). However, for
(M ¼ 3:09, SD ¼ 0:97) and Diageo (M ¼ 3:52, SD ¼ 0:6), enterprise, competence, chic, ruthlessness, machismo, the
but not between Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV. correlation can be seen as medium to high at the 0.01 (two-
This means that the image of Guinness Stout remains tailed) significance level. In a house of brands configuration
unchanged regardless of the name of the company that (different names for the corporation and product),
endorses it. The same could be said about Smirnoff with the relationships are not significant on a majority of dimensions.
exception of two dimensions. In fact, Smirnoff Ice is
perceived as more macho and more informal when endorsed Regression analysis: image spillover in a branded house
by Diageo, than when endorsed by Guinness Group or configuration (H3a and H3b)
Guinness UDV. It seems that respondents are contrasting To investigate the relationship between product and corporate
Smirnoff Ice’s personality with Guinness’s personality. As image in a branded house type of configuration, the results for
Guinness is seen as macho and informal, respondents Guinness Ireland Group and Guinness UDV Ireland were put
emphasise the feminine and formal aspects of Smirnoff Ice together and a succession of regression analyses were run for
when endorsed by Guinness. The behaviour of respondents each personality dimension. Table V presents the regression
can be explained thanks to the assimilation/contrast theory model results for Guinness Corporation (Guinness Ireland
(Cooke et al., 2004), which implies that respondents over-rate Group and GuinnessUDV) and Guinness Stout.
the feminine and formal aspects of Smirnoff Ice to contrast it The results show that the product image of Guinness Stout
with the masculine and casual image of Guinness. strongly drives the image of the corporation on some specific
In sum, the product brand image does not seem to vary dimensions. The machismo dimension (which is a strong
significantly when the name is either slightly changed or characteristic of Guinness Stout), the chic, ruthlessness and
radically changed. This leads to accept H2a and reject H2b. enterprise dimensions have substantial correlation coefficient
The combination of those findings implies that product brand values that predict 51.4 per cent, 49.5 per cent, 45 per cent,
image does not vary significantly over time when the and 41.7 per cent respectively of the observed dependent
corporate name is modified. variable – Guinness Corporation. For agreeableness,
competence and informality, product image only predicts
Exploring vertical product and corporate image relationships corporate image weakly.
depending on the type of brand architecture (H3 and H4) The variability in corporate image for machismo is 26.4 per
The model proposed earlier splits into two scenarios: cent (R square ¼ 0:264) explained by the machismo image of
1 before rebranding, where the corporation and its main the product. The variability in the corporate chic dimension is
product share the same name; and 24.5 per cent (R square ¼ 0:245) explained by the product
2 after rebranding, where the two entities have different chic dimension; the variability of corporate perceived
names.
ruthlessness at 20.2 per cent (R square ¼ 0:202) can be
Before running a regression model between product and accounted for by the product image for ruthlessness.
corporate image, the degree of correlation between the two Based on those results, one can conclude that the image of
variables depending on the brand architecture needs to be the corporate brand is driven by the product image when the
evaluated. two share the same name. To corroborate this finding, we
To investigate whether the two situations display different compared the overall image of the product brand Guinness
patterns of relationship, a Pearson moment correlation was with the corporate brand Guinness to outline their similarities
used to describe the strength and the direction of the linear (Table VI and Figure 4).
relationship between product image and corporate image. When the corporation and its product share the same name,
The results are presented in Table IV. images of the corporation seem to be driven by images of the
The Pearson test shows a significant degree of correlation in product. The Guinness product brand is built around three
a “branded house” type of configuration, i.e. when the pillars, which are goodness, power, and communion
product and the corporation share the same name. For the (Griffiths, 2004). “Power” can be attributed to the taste of
agreeableness and the informality dimensions, the the drink, several advertising campaigns, and the fact that the
relationship between Guinness product and Guinness stout is primarily drunk by men (Griffiths, 2004). As a result,
Table IV Correlation between the different personality dimensions of a brand and its endorser
Guinness Stout/Guinness Guinness Stout/ Guinness Stout/ Smirnoff Ice/Guinness Smirnoff Ice/Guinness Smirnoff Ice/
Ireland Group Guinness UDV Ireland Diageo Ireland Ireland Group UDV Ireland Diageo Ireland
N valid 63 77 64 65 76 66
Agreeable N/S 0.283 * N/S 2 0.394 * * 2 0.341 * * 0.277 *
Enterprise 0.483 * * 0.361 * * 20.428 * * N/S N/S N/S
Competence 0.420 * * 0.258 * * N/S N/S 2 0.250 * N/S
Chic 0.529 * * 0.438 * * N/S N/S N/S N/S
Ruthlessness 0.342 * * 0.533 * * N/S N/S N/S N/S
Machismo 0.571 * * 0.482 * * 0.254 * 2 0.316 * 2 0.256 * N/S
Informality N/S 0.346 * * N/S 2 0.336 * * 0.240 * 2 0.258 *
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); * * correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
327

8. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Table V Model results for branded house type of configuration
Model Ra R square Adjusted R square Std error of the estimate B F Sig.
Agreeableness 1 0.264 0.070 0.063 0.51255 0.243 10.254 0.005
Enterprise 2 0.417 0.174 0.168 0.68036 0.380 28.794 0.000
Competence 3 0.342 0.117 0.110 0.55446 0.302 18.108 0.000
Chic 4 0.495 0.245 0.240 0.53975 0.400 44.530 0.000
Ruthlessness 5 0.450 0.202 0.197 0.79389 0.455 34.765 0.000
Machismo 6 0.514 0.264 0.259 0.72295 0.553 49.176 0.000
Informality 7 0.276 0.076 0.069 0.91800 0.345 11.271 0.001
Notes: Dependent variable: corporate image; a Predictors: (constant), product image
Table VI Personality scores for a product and a corporation with the If corporate image is clearly influenced by product image on
same name most dimensions, the effect might be reciprocal; i.e. product
image can be the result of corporate image at least on some
Guinness Stout Guinness Corp.
specific traits. In this section, we test H3b by investigating
Agreeableness 3.40 3.12 traits that are more specifically associated with corporate
Enterprise 3.00 2.73 image. Those items have been subjectively selected based on
Competence 3.40 3.68 the researcher’s own understanding of the Guinness
Chic 2.70 2.65 Corporate Image heritage – informed through the case
Ruthlessness 2.38 2.69 study. The items tested were: concerned, reassuring, honest,
Machismo 3.73 4.07 sincere and socially responsible as they communicate the
Informality 3.79 3.07 paternalistic heritage of the company.
The results in Table VII show that product image is strongly
influenced by corporate image for items such as honesty,
sincerity and social-responsibility. The social-responsibility
Figure 4 Personality shape of a product and a corporation with the
measure for Guinness Corporation predicts 55.6 per cent of
same name
the observed score for the Guinness product. 30.9 per cent of
the variation in the socially responsible image of the Guinness
Stout is explained by the socially responsible image of the
Guinness Corporation. Similarly, the correlation coefficients
for corporate honesty and sincerity indicate that 39 per cent
and 42 per cent the product image is explained by the
corporate images. The significance level of the F values – less
than 0.0005 – indicates that the null hypothesis that there is
no relationship between corporate image and product image
can be rejected.
For reassuring and concerned, which also relate to the
“people-oriented” aspect of the Guinness corporate brand,
the results are less convincing. R square values indicate that
8.4 per cent and 7.4 per cent of the variability in the
reassuring and concerned image of the product is explained
by the corporate image.
the scores on the machismo dimensions for Guinness Stout Based on the results, the H3b that corporate image also
are relatively high. Guinness Stout is perceived as masculine influences product imagery on some historical, corporate
(4.2), tough (3.8) and rugged (3.9). The scores for the characteristics, can be accepted.
corporation, i.e. Guinness Group or GuinnessUDV are almost
identical; 4.3, 3.9 and 3.8 respectively. Yet, under the Diageo Corporate brand isolation/ neutralisation (H4)
name the scores are significantly lower: masculine (3.7); The results of the survey have shown so far that when a
tough (3.2), and rugged (2.8). The same reasoning applies to corporation and its main product share the same name,
the informality dimension, which seems to be directly corporate image is influenced by product image. Equally, the
influenced by the third pillar of the product brand: results have shown that some traits of the product image are
“Communion”, which refers to the way the product is influenced by the corporate image heritage.
consumed i.e. “people connecting with one another in a pub.” On the contrary, the change of name to Diageo Ireland
As a result, Guinness, the company, shows great similarities should diminish direct associations between the corporation
with Guinness the product, being perceived as equally casual and its product. The correlation showed that there was no
and simple. significant relationship between product image of either
H3a, which states that there is an image spillover from the Guinness or Smirnoff Ice and the corporate image of Diageo.
product to the corporation when the two entities share the This means that product image does not influence corporate
same name, is therefore accepted. image and vice versa.
328

9. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Table VII Model results for branded house type of configuration
Ra R square Adjusted R square Std error of the estimate B F Sig.
Concerned 0.289 0.084 0.077 0.89751 0.257 12.394 0.001
Reassuring 0.275 0.076 0.069 1.03394 0.279 11.200 0.001
Honest 0.398 0.158 0.152 0.95589 0.397 25.795 0.000
Sincere 0.421 0.177 0.171 0.94265 0.428 29.226 0.000
Socially responsible 0.556 0.309 0.304 0.91722 0.548 61.292 0.000
Notes: Dependent variable: product image; a predictors: (constant), corporate image
The notion of corporate brand isolation means that the modify consumers’ corporate image was verified with the
corporation develops a personality independent of the images CCS. The survey shows that the variation in perception of
of its product. To test H4 – that corporate brand image is personality between Guinness Ireland Group and
independent from the brand images of the product portfolio GuinnesssUDV was not significant (H1a), while the
in a house of brands configuration – we compared and variation between either of those names and Diageo was
contrasted the personalities of Diageo with that of Guinness significant on most dimensions (H1b).
Stout and Smirnoff Ice. With the exception of the chic The second set of findings pertains to the linkages between
dimension, differences are significant on all dimensions corporate image and product image. One of our hypotheses
between Smirnoff Ice and Diageo; equally differences (H2b) proposed that a radical change of name at the corporate
between Guinness Stout and Diageo are significant on the level affects product imagery. The survey revealed, on the
ruthlessness, machismo and informality dimensions. Figure 5 contrary, that a change in the brand architecture (strict
summarises the comparison of the personalities of Guinness separation between new corporate name and product brand)
Stout, Smirnoff Ice and Diageo on the seven dimensions did not affect product image. The second series of tests aimed
measured on the Character Scale. The diagram clearly at determining the potential spillover effect from product
demonstrates the dissimilarity among the three brands. image to corporate image. The hypothesis H3a, that corporate
On the basis of this test, we can accept H4a that corporate image was derived from product image, was accepted.
image is independent from product image and vice versa Reciprocally, on some key traits that can be attributed to
(H4b) in a house of brands configuration (different names). historical corporate behaviour, there is a reciprocal spillover
effect from corporate to product image (H3b) when the two
Summary of findings entities share the same name. The acceptance of these two
hypotheses validates the image spillover model of a branded
This study has sought to contribute to the understanding of house type of configuration. As expected, when corporate and
corporate and brand images by considering how they are product brands are not linked through their name, different
affected by a corporate rebranding. The results have shown perceptions are allowed to be formed – validation of H4.
that the perceived personality of the new corporate brand
differs significantly from the previous name. The image of the
Discussion and implications
old name is very much aligned with the image of the product
brand that shares its name. The rebranding process The findings of this study deepen our knowledge in the area of
implemented at Diageo Ireland may be quite original in the rebranding, product brand/corporate brand interactions and
sense that the company did not proclaim that “Diageo was the corporate brand building. They also have some significant
new Guinness”; instead it gradually introduced an managerial implications.
evolutionary name to key stakeholders before presenting a Corporate branding can be seen as the receptacle of both a
radically new name. This case clearly shows that a corporate marketing tradition that focuses on consumers and a multi-
rebranding can be successful in shaping new images. The disciplinary tradition which is centred on the organisation.
hypothesis (H1) that only a radical change of name will Consumers’ bond and emotional attachment may be a
valuable asset at the product level; yet at the corporate level it
Figure 5 Asymmetrical personalities in a “house of brands” can be a burden. A rebranding at the corporate level that
configuration seeks to dissociate the corporation from its products allows
the corporation to reflect more accurately its corporate reality.
In the case studied, the empirical investigation bears this out
by showing clearly that the company and the product are
mainly linked through their name and suggesting that
corporate images may be irrelevant to consumers – only
product images matter. For consumers, corporate images
seem to be irrelevant and ineffective in changing their
perceptions of the product.
Under its former product brand name, the company
displayed personality traits that were aligned with the
intended image of the product brand. The Guinness
product brand is built around three pillars, which are
goodness, power, and communion (Griffiths, 2004). Hence
329

10. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
the company and the brand are equally perceived as Limitations and further research
masculine (4.3), tough (3.9) and rugged (3.8). Yet, under
Although this study reports some key findings, it is not
the Diageo name the scores are significantly lower: masculine
without limitations. One limitation is related to the use of a
(3.7); tough (3.2), and rough (2.8). The same reasoning
single case study. Although the case study approach has
applied to the informality dimension, which seems to be
allowed us to gain a deep insight on the rebranding
directly influenced by the third pillar of the product brand:
phenomenon, this has been at the expense of
communion, which refers to the way the product is consumed
generalisability. For example, the branding of the CSR
i.e. “people connecting with one another in a pub.” As a programme towards the general public and government but
result, Guinness, the company, shows great similarities with not towards consumers might be a particular feature of the
Guinness the product, being perceived as equally casual and alcohol industry but not of others. Yet, considering the strong
simple while Diageo is seen as more formal. One can question criticism of global corporations and their alleged lack of
the relevance for a company to be perceived in a way that is accountability, the model might still be used as a template for
aligned with its product brand image. The machismo and any global company that has to be both accountable to its
informality attributes might be constitute a competitive shareholders and to society at large. In order to be able to
advantage at the brand level but may not deliver any generalise the findings, multiple case studies of various
positive return at the corporate level. companies in various industries in different countries would
In contrast, a differentiated name allows the company to be necessary and this would constitute a worthwhile direction
develop a personality independent from its products. With an for future research.
adequate corporate brand communications programme, With regard to the survey, two issues may be raised. The
which emphasises on both entrepreneurship and social results reflect the perception of 20-year-old students who may
responsibility, Diageo was able develop a new personality. not be representative of the entire consumer population. The
The new brand might be less “warm”, being perceived as less brand images of 20-year-old students may be influenced more
“friendly” and “agreeable”; but it has managed to shape an by the current product brand communications programme
image aligned with the requirement of today’s business than by corporate heritage and behaviour. This might explain
environment; i.e. “up-to-date, innovative, imaginative” and the similarity in personalities between the product brand
“international”. Overall, this new corporate image is more Guinness and the corporate brand Guinness. A worthwhile
neutral (rating around the mid-point of the Likert scale) than issue for further research would be to capture the perception
the one under the old name. of a wider sample representative of the entire consumer
If corporate branding is about placing the corporation in population (by surveying older consumers). The purpose of
the spotlight (Fombrun and van Riel, 2004), and if brands the study was to capture consumers’ images. A worthwhile
exist once they are present in the mind of consumers (Keller, route for further research would be to include other
1998), one might question the brand status of Diageo. But stakeholders such as publicans and also employees, job
this contention leads necessarily to a re-assessment of seekers, journalists and government.
traditional views on corporate branding. Another limitation is that the study adopted a cross-
Traditional corporate (endorsed) branding strategies carry a sectional research design to study what is fundamentally a
certain degree of reputation risk. For example, the move from longitudinal process. Given that corporate rebranding is a
BSN to the Danone Group has increased the company’s dynamic process and that a certain period of time may be
exposure, which may now be more prone to consumers’ needed before external images evolve, a longitudinal research
boycott when it takes a decision that is contradictory to its design spanning a number of years (before, during and after
the rebranding) would undoubtedly provide a richer and more
brand proposition. Yet rejecting traditional corporate brand
accurate understanding of the phenomenon. However, by way
models also has some reputation implications (Balmer and
of compensation, the case study approach does provide a
Greyser, 2003). Brands are not immune from the criticism of
useful validity check on the longitudinal dimension because it
governments, activists and consumer associations. As a result
necessarily involves a detailed study of the evolution of the
the corporations behind those brands need to be perceived as
company over time.
responsible citizens (Fombrun and van Riel, 2004). Finally, although the CCS is a good instrument to capture
Corporate brand isolation is an idea that can be used by the complexity of corporate and brand images, some other
companies willing to constrain their relationship with instruments and variables could also have been used, possibly
customers at the product brand level while developing an with different results. For future research, moderating
independent corporate brand for the relationships with the variables such as familiarity and experience could be taken
general public and other stakeholders. While corporate brands into consideration, while the congruency between brand and
are affected by mergers and acquisitions, diversification and corporate image and reputation should also be investigated.
divestment, the individual (product) brand remains a stable
relationship focus with consumers. On the other hand, the
need for greater accountability is satisfied through the Conclusions
corporate branding of the CSR programme towards The Guinness/Diageo case study reveals that consumers’
government and the general public. Because of this images of the product brand were not affected by a change at
separation, the socially responsible actions of the the corporate level and, yet, they perceive the company
corporation are not leveraged at product/consumer level but differently when the name has been radically changed. That is
the separation acts as a firewall in case of corporate behaviour because the images of the company under its old name were
(e.g. firing off workers) antithetical to the product brand mainly derived from the images of the product that bears the
proposition. same name (image spillover). Following a change in the name
330

11. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
of the corporation – a change from a branded house to a formation of consumer ideals”, Journal of Consumer
house of brands architecture – the relationship between the Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, p. 112.
images of the products and the corporation become less Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2006), “Corporate branding,
significant. The corporate brand and product brands then identity and customer response”, Journal of the Academy of
develop separate, independent personalities and corporate Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-9.
brand images become irrelevant for consumers, as their Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), “Gaps between the internal
relationship with the company is restricted to their images of and external perceptions of the corporate brand”, Corporate
the product brand (corporate brand neutralisation). Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-58.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), “The use of metaphor in the
Notes exploration of the brand concept”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-71.
1 By 2000, Diageo plc had divested several subsidiaries to Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2004), “A
concentrate on alcohol products which mainly comprised corporate character scale to assess employee and customer
a spirit side – the heritage of GrandMet – and a brewing views of organization reputation”, Corporate Reputation
side -the heritage of Guinness. Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-46.
2 Other priority brands are Smirnoff; Johnny Walker, Diageo (1998), Annual Report 1998, Diageo, London.
Baileys, J&B Whiskey, Captain Morgan Rum, Jose Dowling, G. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations, Oxford
Cuervo tequila and Tanqueray gin.
University Press, Oxford.
3 With the exception of charming, GuinnessUDV
Fombrun, C.J. and van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Fame and
systematically rated between Diageo and Guinness
Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning
Ireland Group, but differences with the later were not
significant. Reputations, Pearson Education, London.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate
image and corporate reputation”, Long Range Planning,
References Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Griffin, J.J. (2002), “To brand or not to brand? trade-offs in
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity – Capitalizing on
corporate branding decisions”, Corporate Reputation Review,
the Value of a Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY.
Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 228-40.
Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”,
Griffiths, M. (2004), Guinness Is Guinness . . ., Cyan
California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-20.
Communications, London.
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), “The brand
Kaikati, J.G. (2003), “Lessons from Accenture’s 3Rs:
relationship spectrum: the key to the brand architecture
challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, rebranding, restructuring and repositioning”, Journal of
pp. 8-23. Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 477-90.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”, Kapferer, J.-N. (2002), Ce qui va Changer les Marques,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, p. 347. Editions Organisation, Paris.
Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to corporate image Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-
management”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5 Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
No. 1, pp. 63-76. Klink, R.R. (2001), “Creating meaningful new brand names:
Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2003), “Do brand a study of semantics and sound symbolism”, Journal of
personality scales really measure brand personality?”, Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-34.
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-55. Knox, S. (2004), “Positioning and branding your
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2003), Revealing the organisation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation, Vol. 13 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-15.
Corporate Branding and Corporate-level Marketing, Kohli, C. and Labahn, D.W. (1997), “Creating effective
Routledge, London. brand names: a study of the naming process”, Journal of
Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Bruggen, G.H. (2005), Advertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 67-75.
“Corporate associations and consumer product responses: Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2005), “Managing brand
the moderating role of corporate brand dominance”, portfolios: how strategies have changed”, Journal of
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, pp. 35-48. Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 314-27.
Bernstein, D. (1984), Company Image and Reality: A Critique Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E. (2002), “Recall and
of Corporate Communications, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, recognition of brand names: a comparison of word and
Eastbourne. nonword name types”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the Nos 7/8, pp. 621-39.
product: corporate associations and consumer product Madden, T.J., Fehle, F. and Fournier, S. (2006), “Brands
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84. matter: an empirical demonstration of the creation of
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2006), “The influence of corporate shareholder value through branding”, Journal of the
character on customers and employees: exploring Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 224-35.
similarities and differences”, Journal of the Academy of Margulies, W. (1977), “Make the most of your corporate
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 138-46. identity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55, pp. 66-77.
Cooke, A.D.J., Janiszewski, C., Cunha, M. Jr, Nasco, S.A. Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of a retail store”,
and de Wilde, E. (2004), “Stimulus context and the Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, pp. 47-55.
331

12. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (2000), “Global corporate trade representative at the French Embassy Trade Office in
visual identity systems: using an extended marketing mix”, New York. His qualification includes an MBA from Texas
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, pp. 538-50. A&M International University and a PhD from UCD Smurfit
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2006), “Corporate School of Business. His articles on corporate rebranding have
rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand appeared in the Corporate Reputation Review, the Journal of
equity?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8, Brand Management and the European Journal of Marketing.
pp. 803-24. Laurent Muzellec is the corresponding author and can be
Saunders, J. and Guoqun, F. (1997), “Dual branding: how contacted at: Laurent.muzellec@dcu.ie
corporate names add value”, Journal of Product & Brand Mary Lambkin is Professor of Marketing at the UCD
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 40-8. Smurfit School of Business, University College Dublin. She is
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics: the Irish representative of the European Marketing Academy
the Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image, Free and is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Strategic
Press, New York, NY. Marketing. She has published in the Journal of Marketing, the
Scholder Ellen, P., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006), International Journal of Research in Marketing and the European
“Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for Journal of Marketing. Her current research interests are
corporate socially responsible programs”, Journal of the focused on brand portfolio management in the context of
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-57. mergers and acquisitions.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (2001), “Are the strategic stars
aligned for your brand?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79 Executive summary and implications for
No. 2, pp. 129-34.
managers and executives
Varadarajan, R., DeFanti, M.P. and Busch, P.S. (2006),
“Brand portfolio, corporate image, and reputation: This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
managing brand deletion”, Journal of the Academy of a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 195-205. particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
Visa (n.d.), “Hot topic the new Visa commercail brand”, in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of
available at: http://corporate.visa.com/md/nb/hot (accessed the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
4 July 2005). material present.
Yorkston, E. and Menon, G. (2004), “A sound idea: phonetic
effects of brand names on consumer judgments”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 43-51. Watering down Guinness? The Diageo effect
Guinness is a strong drink. It is a strong brand. It is available
Further reading everywhere it seems, the world over. It is certainly popular
wherever alcohol is permitted. Few places can resist the black
Alashban, A.A., Hayes, L.A., Zinkham, G. and Balazs, A. stuff with the creamy head.
(2002), “International brand-name standardization/ The nature of the Irish diaspora begins to explain it, but not
adaptation antecedents and consequences”, Journal of quite, not fully. Irish bars have sprung up in places with few
International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 22-48. Irish, and Guinness’s success extends way beyond the Irish
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitative Data bars.
Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows, Routledge, Guinness have acted as something of a consumer marketing
Hove. role model over the years. Most advertising museums, should
Dacin, P.A. and Smith, D.C. (1994), “The effect of brand such institutions exist, would feature the posters, and the beer
portfolio characteristics on consumers evaluation of brand mats and the merchandise and paraphernalia. It seems to
extension”, JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31 belong to everyone, and is part of the narrative of the social
No. 2, pp. 229-42. history of the twentieth century.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through With Guinness the product name was interchangeable with
narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand that of the company. Guinness sold Guinness and the world
reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, new what they stood for. It was and is a venerable brand.
pp. 157-79. Except that Guinness no longer make and sell Guinness.
Muzellec, L. (2005), “What is in a name change? Re-Joycing That privilege belongs to Diageo. Who? Diageo, an untried,
corporate names to create corporate brands”, Corporate untested commodity. Diageo is the corporate identity for the
Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 305-21. people who make Guinness – among other things. Diageo, a
Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), “The challenges name that would seem to have breadth, enabling the company
of corporate branding”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5 to move beyond its core products. But will the introduction of
Nos 2/3, pp. 105-12. the new name risk, well watering down one of the world’s
Whelan, S. (2004), The Role of Brand Names in Determining best-loved beers?
Private Label Image and Purchase Intentions, Marketing
Department, Manchester Business School, Manchester. Abandoning the old and embracing the new
Research by Muzellec and Lambkin has examined the
evolutionary introduction of the Diageo name, and has
About the authors
implications beyond the company concerned and the drinks
Laurent Muzellec is a Lecturer in Marketing at Dublin City industry.
University Business School. He has formerly worked as a They set out to test that:
332

13. Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better? Journal of Product & Brand Management
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
.
Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the grey, rather dull dad that let’s its offspring take centre stage
case of an evolutionary corporate name change. and shine rather than try to steal the limelight.
.
Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the case Affiliations to the Guinness brand are strong. It is a brand
of radical (revolutionary) corporate name change. that is seen as both macho and informal (and even a little in
.
Product brand image will not vary significantly when the touch with its feminine side). Diageo is considered to have far
corporate name is not radically changed. less character. What character it has is hidden behind a flat
.
Product brand image will vary significantly over time and even brand personality rated close to a neutral mid-point
when the corporate name is radically changed on the brand evaluation scale. Compared with Guinness it is
(modification of the brand architecture). seen as higher on ruthlessness, but lower on machismo and
.
Corporate brand image is strongly affected by product informality. Not a lot of fun at a party. However, Diageo is
image in a branded house configuration (same name). considered more open, concerned and socially responsible,
. Product image is significantly influenced by corporate while Guinness scores on being agreeable.
image on some specific items in a branded house In short, the new corporate brand personality is seen as
configuration (same name). quite different from the old. The old was almost
.
Corporate image is independent from product image in a interchangeable with the core product, the new has a more
house of brands configuration (different names). detached air. At the product-level consumers’ close emotional
.
Product image is independent from corporate image in a attachment to the brand is an asset. At the corporate level it
house of brands configuration (different names). can be more limiting. For the customer the product image
clearly matters, but it would appear that the corporate image
In simple terms, essentially the study focused on the effects of matters less so.
easing out the old and sneaking in the new. The new people at Over the years Guinness have successfully pulled off more
Diageo it seems are just as smart as the old people at Guinness. It than a number of neat marketing tricks. It appears that in
seems that a neat trick has been pulled off. Knowing that Diageo their corporate re-branding they have pulled off another one.
has replaced Guinness as the new corporate identity has not The Diageo corporate brand has been introduced slowly and
changed consumer opinions of Guinness the product. At least with little fanfare. No attempt was made to say to consumers
this was not the case at the time when the research was that Diageo make Guinness, the new corporate name was
conducted. So how was this achieved? allowed to form a different identity. The product affiliation
remains strong for customers. It is undiluted. But Diageo
An unexciting personality lives, albeit a quiet life.
In this case the trick appears to be not to make the new
corporate identity all that exciting. In any popularity contest ´
(A precis of the article “Does Diageo make your Guinness taste
Diageo would be outscored by a margin by Guinness. It is the better?”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
333