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
readers can be found at the end of this article.
Introduction
In recent years, change in ownership structure, change in
corporate strategy, change in competitive position, and
change in the external environment have forced companies
to change their name and rearrange their brand architecture
(Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006). This phenomenon has been
labelled rebranding (Griffin, 2002; Kaikati, 2003). The term
rebranding actually assumes that a brand existed prior to the
change of name, as the prefix “re” signifies that the action is in
fact performed for the second time. This is frequently the
case, especially when a well-known consumer brand name
(e.g. Guinness, Philip Morris) is being replaced by a new
corporate brand name (e.g. Diageo, Altria). The issue of
brand architecture modification and corporate redeployment
has been recently addressed (Laforet and Saunders, 2005),
but a model that articulates the effect of brand architecture
modification is yet to be elaborated. This is a gap that this
paper seeks to address.
Names are the critical, core sign of the brand; they
constitute the basis for the corporate communications
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm
Journal of Product & Brand Management
16/5 (2007) 321– 333
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/10610420710779618]
programme and for consumers’ awareness and images
(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
(ex- Guinness), the change of name suggests a move towards
a “house of brands” architecture where corporate associations
are downplayed by maintaining individual names for each
product line distinct from the corporate name (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000).
The first academic issue pertaining to the corporate
rebranding phenomenon is to assess the extent to which a
change of name modifies consumers’ perceptions of the
corporate brand over time, that is, to assess the before and
after effects. The second academic issue is to understand the
influence of corporate image on product image, that is, the
interplay between different levels of the brand architecture.
This is based on the premise that the product and its brand
are integrally related to the corporate brand just as corporate
associations are thought to impact the perceptions of the
product (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Fombrun and van Riel,
2004; Scholder Ellen et al. 2006).
This paper utilises the rebranding context to analyse the
consequences of modifying the brand architecture on both
product brand image and corporate brand image. It sets out
to measure the impact of corporate rebranding (as evidenced
by a name change) on corporate brand personality as well as
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
to obtain a composite picture.
The literature section reviews the role of names in
connecting the corporation to its stakeholders as well as in

321
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
corporate brand building. The methodology section explains
the use of the Corporate Character Scale (Davies et al. 2004,
Chun and Davies, 2006) to assess both product and corporate
image. After a brief introduction to the case, the results of a
survey comparing the images of a corporation under its
current name (Diageo) with images under its previous names
(Guinness Ireland Group and GuinnessUDV) are presented.
They indicate that consumers’ corporate images change
depending on the name of the corporation. Perceptions of the
product brand images remain, however, unchanged. The
managerial and academic implications are discussed in the
last section.
Conceptual background and hypotheses:
Corporate and brand image: the key role of the name
Corporate image may be defined in a variety of ways
(Bernstein, 1984; Abratt, 1989; Gray and Balmer, 1998). It is
sometimes referred to as the global evaluation of a
corporation by an external stakeholder (Dowling, 2001;
Davies and Chun, 2002). A consensus seems to have emerged
around the notion that corporate image is an “overall
impression formed as a result of a variety of formal and
informal signals emanating from the company” (Bernstein,
1984). Among, the formal signals, corporate rebranding is
probably the strongest possible way to signify that something
in the company has changed (Kapferer, 2002). Indeed,
rebrandings are triggered by structural factors such as
internationalisation, mergers and acquisitions, spin-offs,
diversification or divestment (Muzellec and Lambkin, 2006).
Defining a brand as “a name, term, symbol, design or a
combination of them” implies that the name forms the
essence of the brand concept (Aaker, 1991). The name is a
critical, core sign of the brand, the “basis for awareness and
communications effort” (Aaker, 1991, 187). Since the name
can bring inherent strength to a brand (Kohli and Labahn,
1997; Klink, 2001); brand names need to be actively managed
in order to influence external stakeholders. In a conventional
branding perspective, the name is an instrument at the
disposal of the marketing team, who can use symbolism in
order to affect consumers’ perceptions of products or
corporations’ attributes (Klink, 2001; Yorkston and Menon,
2004). Once launched however, the new name becomes the
psychological property of consumers (Lerman and Garbarino,
2002). The same reasoning applies to corporations and
corporate branding. A corporate name is arguably the most
visible element of a visual identity system (Margulies, 1977;
Melewar and Saunders, 2000). A new name along with a new
visual identity can help to create brand new associations when
introduced successfully, as for example, with Lucent
Technologies, a spin-off of AT&T (Schmitt and Simonson,
1997).
Corporate rebranding aims, therefore, at modifying the
stakeholders’ perceptions. Like many corporate branding
programmes, it may do so by projecting the “company
distinctiveness by using the total corporate communication
mix (advertising, press conferences and releases, staged media
events etc . . .) to impress external audiences” (Schultz and
Hatch, 2001). A review of rebranding examples indicates,
however, that all are not of the same order of magnitude.
There appears to be a continuum in rebranding from the
relatively minor, evolutionary modification of the logos and
slogan to the major, revolutionary creation of a new name.
322
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Evolutionary rebranding describes a fairly minor development
in the company’s positioning and aesthetics that is so gradual
that it is hardly perceptible to outside observers. For example,
Visa International recently revamped its logo to give the
company a “fresher, more contemporary feel” (Visa, n.d.). All
companies go through this process over time through a series
of cumulative adjustments and innovations. Revolutionary
rebranding, in contrast, describes a major, identifiable change
in positioning and aesthetics that fundamentally redefines the
company. This change is usually symbolised by a radical
change of name, which would signal to the external audience
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
Ireland Group, GuinnessUDV Ireland or Diageo Ireland).
Yet, depending on the degree of change (evolutionary or
revolutionary), corporate image will be differentially affected.
Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are put
forward:
H1a. Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the
case of an evolutionary corporate name change.
H1b. Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the
case of radical (revolutionary) corporate name change.
Corporate associations and brand portfolio
Branding the corporation aims at improving corporate
reputation by influencing stakeholders’ images of the
company (Knox, 2004; Madden et al., 2006). Corporate
reputation depends on a wide spectrum of expectations
including financial performance and corporate social-
responsibility as well as the promise delivered by the brand
(Fombrun and van Riel, 2004). The degree of synergy
between the corporate brand and the product brand depends
on the brand architecture (Keller, 1998; Varadarajan et al.,
2006). The various relations can be illustrated along a
spectrum from the “branded house” to the “house of brands”,
including “endorsed brands” and “subbrands” (Aaker and
Joachimsthaler, 2000). Most companies employ mixed
strategies but it is useful to characterise the two extremes
for the sake of clarity.
The “house of brands”, in which there is separation
between the corporate and product brands, avoids “corporate
brand” associations that would adversely affect the image of
the product brand. Reciprocally, at a corporate level, it allows
the company to diversify into new product categories without
running any risk of diluting its corporate brand equity. P&G is
able to manage brands like Pampers, Iams dog food and Tide
laundry powder without damaging the brand equity of either
product or its own corporate brand equity. On the contrary, if
P&G was, like Nestlé, a strong brand, then by endorsing both
Iams and Pampers, it could affect negatively the image of the
corporate brand and of the two product brands. Aaker and
Joachimsthaler (2000) detail the advantages of a house of
brands strategy from the product brand perspective:
companies should differentiate each brand if a separate
brand can create and own an association, represent a new,
different offering, avoid an association or deal with a channel
conflict. Consumers may still form their brand images as a
result of corporate behaviour as they realise that there is a
concrete business behind the offering (Fombrun and van Riel,
2004; Dacin and Brown, 2006). Yet, separating the corporate
brand from its constituent sub-units limits the ability of
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
corporations to leverage product brand equity – and vice versa
– and it equally reduces the impact of reciprocal adverse
publicity (Laforet and Saunders, 2005).
By contrast, in a branded house context, where both
corporation and products share the same name, the master
brand is the primary driver for brand associations (Saunders
and Guoqun, 1997). Reciprocally, corporate brands take on
values from the product portfolio (Brown and Dacin, 1997) as
well as from the corporation’s culture and heritage (Aaker,
2004). The master brand becomes the umbrella for various
products or services offered. Virgin provides a typical
example: Virgin Cola, Virgin Music, Virgin Airlines, and
Virgin Jeans. Other examples include Honda, Philips or
Heinz. Corporate brands can be applied to replace multiple,
complex sub-brand structures to achieve cost efficiencies. In a
corporate dominant system, the reputation of the corporation
critically influences consumers’ perceptions of the services
(Knox, 2004). Berens et al. (2005) have demonstrated the
role of the corporate brand in consumer product responses.
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
reputation. Aaker and Joachimsthaler (2000) suggest that the
synergies between product and corporate brand are stronger
in a branded house situation as the master brand contributes
to the offering by adding associations that enhance the value
proposition, reinforcing the credibility, as well as increasing
visibility and communication efficiencies.
The degree of synergy between the corporate brand and the
product brand depends on the brand architecture (Keller,
1998; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Aaker and Joachimsthaler,
2000; Varadarajan et al., 2006). Based on the literature, a
relationship between product image and the nature of
corporate name (same name or different from the product
name) is expected; that is, a product brand image is affected
by a change in brand architecture, and therefore the following
hypotheses are put forward:
H2a. Product brand image will not vary significantly when
the corporate name is not radically changed.
H2b. Product brand image will vary significantly over time
when the corporate name is radically changed
(modification of the brand architecture).
The principle that underpins a strategy where a product and a
corporation share the same name is that of brand extension,
which is to use the image of brands as leverage for enhancing
sincerity. The notion of image spillover consists in leveraging
product brand images and extending those images to the
upper level of the brand hierarchy, i.e. to the corporate brand.
Consumers and the general public are generally more in
contact with the brand(s) than with the corporation. As a
result, consumers are more likely to form their images of the
corporation through their experiences of the product brand.
Because the product and its brand are integrated as
constituent elements of the corporate brand and reputation
(Fombrun and van Riel, 2004), a product image spillover to
corporate image when the two entities share the same name is
expected:
H3a. Corporate brand image is strongly affected by product
image in a branded house configuration (same name).
The studies by Berens et al. (2005), Brown and Dacin (1997)
and Saunders and Guoqun (1997) have also indicated that
corporate associations might influence product imagery.
323
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Therefore, the same principles apply in reverse for an image
spillover from the corporate level to the product level; in
particular for items that are most closely related to corporate
associations such as social responsibility. Hence, the following
hypothesis is put forward:
H3b. Product image is significantly influenced by corporate
image on some specific items in a branded house
configuration (same name).
By corollary, once the corporate brand has been isolated from
its product (via a change of name of the corporation), the
images of product and corporation will become independent
from one another. In sum, the images of the corporation will
not be derived from the product and vice versa. To capture
this notion of corporate brand isolation, the following
hypotheses are put forward:
H4a. Corporate image is independent from product image in
a house of brands configuration (different names).
H4b. Product image is independent from corporate image in
a house of brands configuration (different names).
Description of context, the Guinness/Diageo case
The case of Guinness demonstrates the practical problems
and emerging issues relating to the management of brand
architecture. Guinness was a very strong, iconic corporate
name with a lengthy heritage and a high degree of positive
emotional attachment (Griffiths, 2004). The rebranding
corresponded to a change in the brand architecture and
marked the transformation from a situation where Guinness
Stout and the St James Gate Brewery were quintessentially
Irish to a situation where the group producing Guinness
became a global multi-brand company.
Traditionally, the corporation and its main product shared
the same name; Guinness was consequently omni-present in
Irish life. A high level of goodwill was attached to the name
Guinness, which was the result of a history of outstanding
corporate behaviour both internally and externally. Internally,
Guinness had a paternalistic approach towards its employees.
In the late 1800s, the list of benefits for workers was
impressive by the standards of the time. Working for Guinness
meant wages at 10-20 per cent above the local average,
guaranteed widow’s pensions, and six days paid holidays per
year, free medical care, homes and education (Byrne 1999).
Externally, Ireland and Guinness developed an entwined
relationship thanks to Guinness’s contribution to Irish life
through corporate sponsorship and community involvement.
In 1997, Guinness plc merged with Grand Metropolitan to
form Diageo plc. Like many rebrandings, the adoption of a
new name was triggered by a change in the financial structure
of the corporation. At the corporate headquarters (in
London), the name change was considered a necessity
because of the need to give a name to a new corporate
giant, which owned a variety of brands all over the world.
Grand Met-Guinness had operations in 180 markets (Diageo,
1998). The new entity was also involved in a variety of market
sectors including spirits, wine and beer, but also packaged
food and fast food which comprised Pillsbury, Totinos Pizza,
Green Giant, Haagen Daaz and Burger King[1]. The new
name was to provide a single roof over a house which was now
hosting a complex collection of brands. The name “Diageo
plc” was chosen. It combines the Latin word for “day” and
the Greek word for “earth”.
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
The issue of whether to rename the business units or not
had then to be addressed. In 2001, the decision was taken to
integrate the various business units together and, following a
brief internal debate, the executive board of Diageo plc
decided that the Irish operations would have to change their
name to Diageo Ireland:
[. . .] the debate was between the heritage of the Guinness name and the
necessity to reflect our global brand. But in the end, it was the global aspect
that prevailed.
The implementation of the change, however, was left to the
Irish management. Guinness (Ireland) had already formally
merged with United Distillers and Vintners to form
GuinnessUDV. Grand Metropolitan brands were integrated
into the company’s portfolio. The corporate visual identity of
GuinnessUDV first demarked itself from the traditional
Guinness identity. In this transition period, a new logo was
adopted (Figure 1).
In 2001, the two sides of the business were brought
together. The name was subsequently changed to Diageo for
all stakeholders, with the exception of customers (i.e. the
publicans), who continued to deal with GuinnessUDV until
February 2004.
From a brand architecture standpoint, the merger
eventually meant that Guinness stout had become only one
of the eight global priority brands[2]. Another important
consequence of the name change is that the corporate identity
(now called Diageo) was no longer promoted directly towards
consumers but indirectly towards the general public via eight
key stakeholder groups which included employees, investors,
government, community, media, customers, suppliers, joint
venture partners (JVPs). Corporate communication became
limited to the topic of responsible drinking and business
performance.
Building on the literature on brand extension and corporate
associations, it has been suggested that spillover effects occur
when product and corporation share the same name but do
not occur when the two names are different. All of the
hypotheses are summarised in Table I and placed in the
context of the case under investigation in Figure 2.
How rebranding and brand architecture modification affect
consumers’ images of the product and the corporation is the
question addressed the next section.
Methodology
In marketing and organisational theory, the personification
metaphor has been widely used in developing measurement
scales (Martineau, 1958; Aaker, 1997; Davies and Chun,
2003). Brand personality is “the set of human characteristics
associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997). Although the
definition – and subsequently the Brand Personality Scale
(BPS) – has been recently challenged (Azoulay and Kapferer,
2003), brand personality remains the foremost construct used
to characterise, compare and evaluate brand values and
Figure 1 Business logos Ireland (1997-2002)
324
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Table I Summary of Hypotheses
H1a Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the case of an
evolutionary corporate name change
H1b Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the case of radical
(revolutionary) corporate name change
H2a Product brand image will not vary significantly when the corporate
name is not radically changed
H2b Product brand image will vary significantly over time when the
corporate name is radically changed (modification of the brand
architecture)
H3a Product image is significantly influenced by corporate image on
some specific dimensions in a branded house configuration (same
name)
H3b Product brand image is strongly affected by corporate image in a
branded house configuration (same name)
H4a Corporate image is independent from product image in a house of
brands configuration (different names)
H4b Product image is independent from corporate image in a house of
brands configuration (different names)
attitudes. Recently, a new scale has been introduced to study
corporate image called the Corporate Character Scale (CCS)
(Davies et al., 2004). The CCS is made of 49 traits that are
aggregated around seven dimensions:
1 agreeableness;
2 enterprise;
3 competence;
4 chic;
5 ruthlessness;
6 machismo; and
7 informality.
This CCS was used in our research to assess the external
perceptions of the brand, i.e. the brand image.
This scale was administered to ten groups of undergraduate
business students (n ¼ 433) as part as an in-class exercise.
Respondents were randomly assigned to grade a corporation
(either Guinness, or Guinness-UDV or Diageo) and one of its
products (Guinness Stout or Smirnoff Ice). The three
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.
The two products chosen were Guinness Stout and Smirnoff
Ice. Smirnoff Ice was chosen because it displays
characteristics dissimilar to Guinness and therefore reflected
the breadth of the brand portfolio.
The format of the questionnaire was identical for all
respondents but the name variables being compared were
arranged in pairwise comparisons, which were rotated in
order to evaluate the impact of the change of name and its
relation to product name. The combinations tested were as
follows:
 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
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
Table III Comparison of corporate personality under old and new names
Guinness Guinness
Ireland Group UDV Ireland
Agreeableness 3.3387 3.2418
Enterprise 2.6345 2.6231
Competence 3.6722 3.6648
Chic 2.6748 2.4959
Ruthlessness 2.6035 2.5837
Machismo 4.0417 3.9412
Informality 3.4648 3.3682
Figure 3 Personality profile of the corporation under three different
names
Guinness Ireland Group or GuinnessUDV (n ¼ 281). 64 per
cent of the respondents were unaware of the new name; 34
per cent spontaneously stated that Diageo was the new name.
A t-test showed no significant differences between the two
groups. Equally, knowing that Guinness had changed its
name to Diageo did not modify the perception of Guinness.
These perceptions were similar to those of respondents who
did not know about the rebranding and were significantly
different on the same dimensions as for respondents who
evaluated Diageo. This means that knowledge of the
rebranding did not affect the results.
Diageo has less character than Guinness. The scores for the
new name (Diageo) are higher on enterprise and ruthlessness
but lower on machismo and informality. Overall the Diageo
brand displayed a very flat, even personality that is rated close
to the neutral mid-point. On average, all scores were between
2.77 and 3.78. Conversely, the Guinness brand displayed
stronger character dimensions with the average ranging from
2.60 to 4.04 (Figure 3). In sum, the rebranded corporation
with a previously unknown new name has a personality more
neutral than with its old product brand name.
On an item-by-item basis, the most significant differences
between Guinness Ireland Group and Diageo Ireland were
the following[3]. Guinness Ireland Group was rated
significantly more charming, agreeable (þ 0.4), simple,
masculine, casual (þ 0.6), tough, easy-going (þ 0.75),
rugged (þ0.9). In contrast, Diageo Ireland was perceived as
more concerned, socially responsible (þ 0.9), up-to-date
(þ0.7), achievement-oriented, controlling, snobby, young,
élitist (þ0.5), innovative and authoritative (þ0.4).
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Sign. two-tailed Guinness Diageo Sign. two-tailed
t-test Ireland Group Ireland t-test
NS 3.3387 3.3442 NS
NS 2.6345 2.9264 0.01
NS 3.6722 3.7837 NS
NS 2.6748 2.7750 NS
NS 2.6035 2.9723 0.01
NS 4.0417 3.2865 0.01
NS 3.4648 2.8047 0.01
The personality dimensions of enterprise, ruthlessness,
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)
In this section, the evolution of product image following a
change in the brand architecture is analysed. The hypotheses
posit that product brand image will not vary significantly
when the corporate name is not radically changed (H2a) and
that product brand image will vary over time when the
corporate name is radically changed – modification of the
brand architecture (H2b). To evaluate whether a change in the
brand architecture may also affect product image, six
situations (corresponding to the six questionnaires) are
considered.
First, the product image of Guinness Stout is compared
depending on its endorser, i.e. Guinness Group,
GuinnessUDV or Diageo. The evolution of Smirnoff Ice’s
image is compared under the three same conditions. In order
to explore the impact of a corporate rebranding on product
image, a one-way analysis of variance among the three groups
is conducted. The three conditions correspond to the three
stages of the rebranding process. For Guinness Stout, the
variance on each of the seven dimensions under the three
conditions is not significant. For Smirnoff Ice, the results are
also not significant for the agreeableness, enterprise,
competence, chic and ruthlessness dimensions. However, for
the machismo dimensions, there is a statistically significant
difference under the three conditions (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 6:61,
p , 0:005). Equally the perception of informality varies
significantly depending on the endorser (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 10:25,
p , 0:001). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test
indicated that the mean score on machismo was significantly
different (p , 0:05) between Guinness Group (M ¼ 1:56,
SD ¼ 0:67) and Diageo (M ¼ 2:04, SD ¼ 0:81) but not
between the Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV nor between
GuinnessUDV and Diageo. For Informality, differences of
326
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
product image were significant (p , 0:05) between Guinness
Group (M ¼ 2:91, SD ¼ 0:82) and GuinnessUDV
(M ¼ 3:09, SD ¼ 0:97) and Diageo (M ¼ 3:52, SD ¼ 0:6),
but not between Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV.
This means that the image of Guinness Stout remains
unchanged regardless of the name of the company that
endorses it. The same could be said about Smirnoff with the
exception of two dimensions. In fact, Smirnoff Ice is
perceived as more macho and more informal when endorsed
by Diageo, than when endorsed by Guinness Group or
Guinness UDV. It seems that respondents are contrasting
Smirnoff Ice’s personality with Guinness’s personality. As
Guinness is seen as macho and informal, respondents
emphasise the feminine and formal aspects of Smirnoff Ice
when endorsed by Guinness. The behaviour of respondents
can be explained thanks to the assimilation/contrast theory
(Cooke et al., 2004), which implies that respondents over-rate
the feminine and formal aspects of Smirnoff Ice to contrast it
with the masculine and casual image of Guinness.
In sum, the product brand image does not seem to vary
significantly when the name is either slightly changed or
radically changed. This leads to accept H2a and reject H2b.
The combination of those findings implies that product brand
image does not vary significantly over time when the
corporate name is modified.
Exploring vertical product and corporate image relationships
depending on the type of brand architecture (H3 and H4)
The model proposed earlier splits into two scenarios:
1 before rebranding, where the corporation and its main
product share the same name; and
2 after rebranding, where the two entities have different
names.
Before running a regression model between product and
corporate image, the degree of correlation between the two
variables depending on the brand architecture needs to be
evaluated.
To investigate whether the two situations display different
patterns of relationship, a Pearson moment correlation was
used to describe the strength and the direction of the linear
relationship between product image and corporate image.
The results are presented in Table IV.
The Pearson test shows a significant degree of correlation in
a “branded house” type of configuration, i.e. when the
product and the corporation share the same name. For the
agreeableness and the informality dimensions, the
relationship between Guinness product and Guinness
Table IV Correlation between the different personality dimensions of a brand and its endorser
Guinness Stout/Guinness Guinness Stout/
Ireland Group Guinness UDV Ireland
N valid 63 77
Agreeable N/S 0.283 *
Enterprise 0.483 * * 0.361 * *
Competence 0.420 * * 0.258 * *
Chic 0.529 * * 0.438 * *
Ruthlessness 0.342 * * 0.533 * *
Machismo 0.571 * * 0.482 * *
Informality N/S 0.346 * *
Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); * * correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Corporation is either weak (for GuinnessUDV) or not
significant (for Guinness Ireland Group). However, for
enterprise, competence, chic, ruthlessness, machismo, the
correlation can be seen as medium to high at the 0.01 (two-
tailed) significance level. In a house of brands configuration
(different names for the corporation and product),
relationships are not significant on a majority of dimensions.
Regression analysis: image spillover in a branded house
configuration (H3a and H3b)
To investigate the relationship between product and corporate
image in a branded house type of configuration, the results for
Guinness Ireland Group and Guinness UDV Ireland were put
together and a succession of regression analyses were run for
each personality dimension. Table V presents the regression
model results for Guinness Corporation (Guinness Ireland
Group and GuinnessUDV) and Guinness Stout.
The results show that the product image of Guinness Stout
strongly drives the image of the corporation on some specific
dimensions. The machismo dimension (which is a strong
characteristic of Guinness Stout), the chic, ruthlessness and
enterprise dimensions have substantial correlation coefficient
values that predict 51.4 per cent, 49.5 per cent, 45 per cent,
and 41.7 per cent respectively of the observed dependent
variable – Guinness Corporation. For agreeableness,
competence and informality, product image only predicts
corporate image weakly.
The variability in corporate image for machismo is 26.4 per
cent (R square ¼ 0:264) explained by the machismo image of
the product. The variability in the corporate chic dimension is
24.5 per cent (R square ¼ 0:245) explained by the product
chic dimension; the variability of corporate perceived
ruthlessness at 20.2 per cent (R square ¼ 0:202) can be
accounted for by the product image for ruthlessness.
Based on those results, one can conclude that the image of
the corporate brand is driven by the product image when the
two share the same name. To corroborate this finding, we
compared the overall image of the product brand Guinness
with the corporate brand Guinness to outline their similarities
(Table VI and Figure 4).
When the corporation and its product share the same name,
images of the corporation seem to be driven by images of the
product. The Guinness product brand is built around three
pillars, which are goodness, power, and communion
(Griffiths, 2004). “Power” can be attributed to the taste of
the drink, several advertising campaigns, and the fact that the
stout is primarily drunk by men (Griffiths, 2004). As a result,
Guinness Stout/ Smirnoff Ice/Guinness Smirnoff Ice/Guinness Smirnoff Ice/
Diageo Ireland Ireland Group UDV Ireland Diageo Ireland
64 65 76 66
N/S 2 0.394 * * 2 0.341 * * 0.277 *
20.428 * * N/S N/S N/S
N/S N/S 2 0.250 * N/S
N/S N/S N/S N/S
N/S N/S N/S N/S
0.254 * 2 0.316 * 2 0.256 * N/S
N/S 2 0.336 * * 0.240 * 2 0.258 *
327
 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
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
Table VII Model results for branded house type of configuration
Ra R square Adjusted R square
Concerned 0.289 0.084
Reassuring 0.275 0.076
Honest 0.398 0.158
Sincere 0.421 0.177
Socially responsible 0.556 0.309
Notes: Dependent variable: product image; a predictors: (constant), corporate image
The notion of corporate brand isolation means that the
corporation develops a personality independent of the images
of its product. To test H4 – that corporate brand image is
independent from the brand images of the product portfolio
in a house of brands configuration – we compared and
contrasted the personalities of Diageo with that of Guinness
Stout and Smirnoff Ice. With the exception of the chic
dimension, differences are significant on all dimensions
between Smirnoff Ice and Diageo; equally differences
between Guinness Stout and Diageo are significant on the
ruthlessness, machismo and informality dimensions. Figure 5
summarises the comparison of the personalities of Guinness
Stout, Smirnoff Ice and Diageo on the seven dimensions
measured on the Character Scale. The diagram clearly
demonstrates the dissimilarity among the three brands.
On the basis of this test, we can accept H4a that corporate
image is independent from product image and vice versa
(H4b) in a house of brands configuration (different names).
Summary of findings
This study has sought to contribute to the understanding of
corporate and brand images by considering how they are
affected by a corporate rebranding. The results have shown
that the perceived personality of the new corporate brand
differs significantly from the previous name. The image of the
old name is very much aligned with the image of the product
brand that shares its name. The rebranding process
implemented at Diageo Ireland may be quite original in the
sense that the company did not proclaim that “Diageo was the
new Guinness”; instead it gradually introduced an
evolutionary name to key stakeholders before presenting a
radically new name. This case clearly shows that a corporate
rebranding can be successful in shaping new images. The
hypothesis (H1) that only a radical change of name will
Figure 5 Asymmetrical personalities in a “house of brands”
configuration
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Std error of the estimate B F Sig.
0.077 0.89751 0.257 12.394 0.001
0.069 1.03394 0.279 11.200 0.001
0.152 0.95589 0.397 25.795 0.000
0.171 0.94265 0.428 29.226 0.000
0.304 0.91722 0.548 61.292 0.000
modify consumers’ corporate image was verified with the
CCS. The survey shows that the variation in perception of
personality between Guinness Ireland Group and
GuinnesssUDV was not significant (H1a), while the
variation between either of those names and Diageo was
significant on most dimensions (H1b).
The second set of findings pertains to the linkages between
corporate image and product image. One of our hypotheses
(H2b) proposed that a radical change of name at the corporate
level affects product imagery. The survey revealed, on the
contrary, that a change in the brand architecture (strict
separation between new corporate name and product brand)
did not affect product image. The second series of tests aimed
at determining the potential spillover effect from product
image to corporate image. The hypothesis H3a, that corporate
image was derived from product image, was accepted.
Reciprocally, on some key traits that can be attributed to
historical corporate behaviour, there is a reciprocal spillover
effect from corporate to product image (H3b) when the two
entities share the same name. The acceptance of these two
hypotheses validates the image spillover model of a branded
house type of configuration. As expected, when corporate and
product brands are not linked through their name, different
perceptions are allowed to be formed – validation of H4.
Discussion and implications
The findings of this study deepen our knowledge in the area of
rebranding, product brand/corporate brand interactions and
corporate brand building. They also have some significant
managerial implications.
Corporate branding can be seen as the receptacle of both a
marketing tradition that focuses on consumers and a multi-
disciplinary tradition which is centred on the organisation.
Consumers’ bond and emotional attachment may be a
valuable asset at the product level; yet at the corporate level it
can be a burden. A rebranding at the corporate level that
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
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
the company and the brand are equally perceived as
masculine (4.3), tough (3.9) and rugged (3.8). Yet, under
the Diageo name the scores are significantly lower: masculine
(3.7); tough (3.2), and rough (2.8). The same reasoning
applied to the informality dimension, which seems to be
directly influenced by the third pillar of the product brand:
communion, which refers to the way the product is consumed
i.e. “people connecting with one another in a pub.” As a
result, Guinness, the company, shows great similarities with
Guinness the product, being perceived as equally casual and
simple while Diageo is seen as more formal. One can question
the relevance for a company to be perceived in a way that is
aligned with its product brand image. The machismo and
informality attributes might be constitute a competitive
advantage at the brand level but may not deliver any
positive return at the corporate level.
In contrast, a differentiated name allows the company to
develop a personality independent from its products. With an
adequate corporate brand communications programme,
which emphasises on both entrepreneurship and social
responsibility, Diageo was able develop a new personality.
The new brand might be less “warm”, being perceived as less
“friendly” and “agreeable”; but it has managed to shape an
image aligned with the requirement of today’s business
environment; i.e. “up-to-date, innovative, imaginative” and
“international”. Overall, this new corporate image is more
neutral (rating around the mid-point of the Likert scale) than
the one under the old name.
If corporate branding is about placing the corporation in
the spotlight (Fombrun and van Riel, 2004), and if brands
exist once they are present in the mind of consumers (Keller,
1998), one might question the brand status of Diageo. But
this contention leads necessarily to a re-assessment of
traditional views on corporate branding.
Traditional corporate (endorsed) branding strategies carry a
certain degree of reputation risk. For example, the move from
BSN to the Danone Group has increased the company’s
exposure, which may now be more prone to consumers’
boycott when it takes a decision that is contradictory to its
brand proposition. Yet rejecting traditional corporate brand
models also has some reputation implications (Balmer and
Greyser, 2003). Brands are not immune from the criticism of
governments, activists and consumer associations. As a result
the corporations behind those brands need to be perceived as
responsible citizens (Fombrun and van Riel, 2004).
Corporate brand isolation is an idea that can be used by
companies willing to constrain their relationship with
customers at the product brand level while developing an
independent corporate brand for the relationships with the
general public and other stakeholders. While corporate brands
are affected by mergers and acquisitions, diversification and
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
corporate branding of the CSR programme towards
government and the general public. Because of this
separation, the socially responsible actions of the
corporation are not leveraged at product/consumer level but
the separation acts as a firewall in case of corporate behaviour
(e.g. firing off workers) antithetical to the product brand
proposition.
330
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
Limitations and further research
Although this study reports some key findings, it is not
without limitations. One limitation is related to the use of a
single case study. Although the case study approach has
allowed us to gain a deep insight on the rebranding
phenomenon, this has been at the expense of
generalisability. For example, the branding of the CSR
programme towards the general public and government but
not towards consumers might be a particular feature of the
alcohol industry but not of others. Yet, considering the strong
criticism of global corporations and their alleged lack of
accountability, the model might still be used as a template for
any global company that has to be both accountable to its
shareholders and to society at large. In order to be able to
generalise the findings, multiple case studies of various
companies in various industries in different countries would
be necessary and this would constitute a worthwhile direction
for future research.
With regard to the survey, two issues may be raised. The
results reflect the perception of 20-year-old students who may
not be representative of the entire consumer population. The
brand images of 20-year-old students may be influenced more
by the current product brand communications programme
than by corporate heritage and behaviour. This might explain
the similarity in personalities between the product brand
Guinness and the corporate brand Guinness. A worthwhile
issue for further research would be to capture the perception
of a wider sample representative of the entire consumer
population (by surveying older consumers). The purpose of
the study was to capture consumers’ images. A worthwhile
route for further research would be to include other
stakeholders such as publicans and also employees, job
seekers, journalists and government.
Another limitation is that the study adopted a cross-
sectional research design to study what is fundamentally a
longitudinal process. Given that corporate rebranding is a
dynamic process and that a certain period of time may be
needed before external images evolve, a longitudinal research
design spanning a number of years (before, during and after
the rebranding) would undoubtedly provide a richer and more
accurate understanding of the phenomenon. However, by way
of compensation, the case study approach does provide a
useful validity check on the longitudinal dimension because it
necessarily involves a detailed study of the evolution of the
company over time.
Finally, although the CCS is a good instrument to capture
the complexity of corporate and brand images, some other
instruments and variables could also have been used, possibly
with different results. For future research, moderating
variables such as familiarity and experience could be taken
into consideration, while the congruency between brand and
corporate image and reputation should also be investigated.
Conclusions
The Guinness/Diageo case study reveals that consumers’
images of the product brand were not affected by a change at
the corporate level and, yet, they perceive the company
differently when the name has been radically changed. That is
because the images of the company under its old name were
mainly derived from the images of the product that bears the
same name (image spillover). Following a change in the name
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
of the corporation – a change from a branded house to a
house of brands architecture – the relationship between the
images of the products and the corporation become less
significant. The corporate brand and product brands then
develop separate, independent personalities and corporate
brand images become irrelevant for consumers, as their
relationship with the company is restricted to their images of
the product brand (corporate brand neutralisation).
Notes
1 By 2000, Diageo plc had divested several subsidiaries to
concentrate on alcohol products which mainly comprised
a spirit side – the heritage of GrandMet – and a brewing
side -the heritage of Guinness.
2 Other priority brands are Smirnoff; Johnny Walker,
Baileys, J&B Whiskey, Captain Morgan Rum, Jose
Cuervo tequila and Tanqueray gin.
3 With the exception of charming, GuinnessUDV
systematically rated between Diageo and Guinness
Ireland Group, but differences with the later were not
significant.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1991), Managing Brand Equity – Capitalizing on
the Value of a Brand Name, Free Press, New York, NY.
Aaker, D.A. (2004), “Leveraging the corporate brand”,
California Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 6-20.
Aaker, D.A. and Joachimsthaler, E. (2000), “The brand
relationship spectrum: the key to the brand architecture
challenge”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 8-23.
Aaker, J.L. (1997), “Dimensions of brand personality”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, p. 347.
Abratt, R. (1989), “A new approach to corporate image
management”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 63-76.
Azoulay, A. and Kapferer, J.-N. (2003), “Do brand
personality scales really measure brand personality?”,
Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 143-55.
Balmer, J.M.T. and Greyser, S.A. (2003), Revealing the
Corporation: Perspectives on Identity, Image, Reputation,
Corporate Branding and Corporate-level Marketing,
Routledge, London.
Berens, G., van Riel, C.B.M. and van Bruggen, G.H. (2005),
“Corporate associations and consumer product responses:
the moderating role of corporate brand dominance”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, July, pp. 35-48.
Bernstein, D. (1984), Company Image and Reality: A Critique
of Corporate Communications, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Eastbourne.
Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the
product: corporate associations and consumer product
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
Chun, R. and Davies, G. (2006), “The influence of corporate
character on customers and employees: exploring
similarities and differences”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 138-46.
Cooke, A.D.J., Janiszewski, C., Cunha, M. Jr, Nasco, S.A.
and de Wilde, E. (2004), “Stimulus context and the
331
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
formation of consumer ideals”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, p. 112.
Dacin, P.A. and Brown, T.J. (2006), “Corporate branding,
identity and customer response”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 95-9.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2002), “Gaps between the internal
and external perceptions of the corporate brand”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 144-58.
Davies, G. and Chun, R. (2003), “The use of metaphor in the
exploration of the brand concept”, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 45-71.
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V. and Roper, S. (2004), “A
corporate character scale to assess employee and customer
views of organization reputation”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 125-46.
Diageo (1998), Annual Report 1998, Diageo, London.
Dowling, G. (2001), Creating Corporate Reputations, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Fombrun, C.J. and van Riel, C.B.M. (2004), Fame and
Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning
Reputations, Pearson Education, London.
Gray, E.R. and Balmer, J.M.T. (1998), “Managing corporate
image and corporate reputation”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 695-702.
Griffin, J.J. (2002), “To brand or not to brand? trade-offs in
corporate branding decisions”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 228-40.
Griffiths, M. (2004), Guinness Is Guinness . . ., Cyan
Communications, London.
Kaikati, J.G. (2003), “Lessons from Accenture’s 3Rs:
rebranding, restructuring and repositioning”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 477-90.
Kapferer, J.-N. (2002), Ce qui va Changer les Marques,
Editions Organisation, Paris.
Keller, K.L. (1998), Strategic Brand Management, Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Klink, R.R. (2001), “Creating meaningful new brand names:
a study of semantics and sound symbolism”, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 27-34.
Knox, S. (2004), “Positioning and branding your
organisation”, Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 13 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-15.
Kohli, C. and Labahn, D.W. (1997), “Creating effective
brand names: a study of the naming process”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 67-75.
Laforet, S. and Saunders, J. (2005), “Managing brand
portfolios: how strategies have changed”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 314-27.
Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E. (2002), “Recall and
recognition of brand names: a comparison of word and
nonword name types”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 19
Nos 7/8, pp. 621-39.
Madden, T.J., Fehle, F. and Fournier, S. (2006), “Brands
matter: an empirical demonstration of the creation of
shareholder value through branding”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 224-35.
Margulies, W. (1977), “Make the most of your corporate
identity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 55, pp. 66-77.
Martineau, P. (1958), “The personality of a retail store”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 36, pp. 47-55.
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
Melewar, T.C. and Saunders, J. (2000), “Global corporate
visual identity systems: using an extended marketing mix”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, pp. 538-50.
Muzellec, L. and Lambkin, M.C. (2006), “Corporate
rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand
equity?”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 7/8,
pp. 803-24.
Saunders, J. and Guoqun, F. (1997), “Dual branding: how
corporate names add value”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 40-8.
Schmitt, B.H. and Simonson, A. (1997), Marketing Aesthetics:
the Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Scholder Ellen, P., Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (2006),
“Building corporate associations: consumer attributions for
corporate socially responsible programs”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 147-57.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (2001), “Are the strategic stars
aligned for your brand?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79
No. 2, pp. 129-34.
Varadarajan, R., DeFanti, M.P. and Busch, P.S. (2006),
“Brand portfolio, corporate image, and reputation:
managing brand deletion”, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 195-205.
Visa (n.d.), “Hot topic the new Visa commercail brand”,
available at: http://corporate.visa.com/md/nb/hot (accessed
4 July 2005).
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.
Further reading
Alashban, A.A., Hayes, L.A., Zinkham, G. and Balazs, A.
(2002), “International brand-name standardization/
adaptation antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
International Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 22-48.
Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. (2001), Quantitative Data
Analysis with SPSS Release 10 for Windows, Routledge,
Hove.
Dacin, P.A. and Smith, D.C. (1994), “The effect of brand
portfolio characteristics on consumers evaluation of brand
extension”, JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 229-42.
de Chernatony, L. (1999), “Brand management through
narrowing the gap between brand identity and brand
reputation”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15,
pp. 157-79.
Muzellec, L. (2005), “What is in a name change? Re-Joycing
corporate names to create corporate brands”, Corporate
Reputation Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 305-21.
Schultz, M. and de Chernatony, L. (2002), “The challenges
of corporate branding”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 5
Nos 2/3, pp. 105-12.
Whelan, S. (2004), The Role of Brand Names in Determining
Private Label Image and Purchase Intentions, Marketing
Department, Manchester Business School, Manchester.
About the authors
Laurent Muzellec is a Lecturer in Marketing at Dublin City
University Business School. He has formerly worked as a
332
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
trade representative at the French Embassy Trade Office in
New York. His qualification includes an MBA from Texas
A&M International University and a PhD from UCD Smurfit
School of Business. His articles on corporate rebranding have
appeared in the Corporate Reputation Review, the Journal of
Brand Management and the European Journal of Marketing.
Laurent Muzellec is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: Laurent.muzellec@dcu.ie
Mary Lambkin is Professor of Marketing at the UCD
Smurfit School of Business, University College Dublin. She is
the Irish representative of the European Marketing Academy
and is on the editorial boards of the Journal of Strategic
Marketing. She has published in the Journal of Marketing, the
International Journal of Research in Marketing and the European
Journal of Marketing. Her current research interests are
focused on brand portfolio management in the context of
mergers and acquisitions.
Executive summary and implications for
managers and executives
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives
a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a
particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article
in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of
the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the
material present.
Watering down Guinness? The Diageo effect
Guinness is a strong drink. It is a strong brand. It is available
everywhere it seems, the world over. It is certainly popular
wherever alcohol is permitted. Few places can resist the black
stuff with the creamy head.
The nature of the Irish diaspora begins to explain it, but not
quite, not fully. Irish bars have sprung up in places with few
Irish, and Guinness’s success extends way beyond the Irish
bars.
Guinness have acted as something of a consumer marketing
role model over the years. Most advertising museums, should
such institutions exist, would feature the posters, and the beer
mats and the merchandise and paraphernalia. It seems to
belong to everyone, and is part of the narrative of the social
history of the twentieth century.
With Guinness the product name was interchangeable with
that of the company. Guinness sold Guinness and the world
new what they stood for. It was and is a venerable brand.
Except that Guinness no longer make and sell Guinness.
That privilege belongs to Diageo. Who? Diageo, an untried,
untested commodity. Diageo is the corporate identity for the
people who make Guinness – among other things. Diageo, a
name that would seem to have breadth, enabling the company
to move beyond its core products. But will the introduction of
the new name risk, well watering down one of the world’s
best-loved beers?
Abandoning the old and embracing the new
Research by Muzellec and Lambkin has examined the
evolutionary introduction of the Diageo name, and has
implications beyond the company concerned and the drinks
industry.
They set out to test that:
 Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?
Laurent Muzellec and Mary Lambkin
.
Corporate brand image will not vary significantly in the
case of an evolutionary corporate name change.
.
Corporate brand image will vary significantly in the case
of radical (revolutionary) corporate name change.
.
Product brand image will not vary significantly when the
corporate name is not radically changed.
.
Product brand image will vary significantly over time
when the corporate name is radically changed
(modification of the brand architecture).
.
Corporate brand image is strongly affected by product
image in a branded house configuration (same name).
. Product image is significantly influenced by corporate
image on some specific items in a branded house
configuration (same name).
.
Corporate image is independent from product image in a
house of brands configuration (different names).
.
Product image is independent from corporate image in a
house of brands configuration (different names).
In simple terms, essentially the study focused on the effects of
easing out the old and sneaking in the new. The new people at
Diageo it seems are just as smart as the old people at Guinness. It
seems that a neat trick has been pulled off. Knowing that Diageo
has replaced Guinness as the new corporate identity has not
changed consumer opinions of Guinness the product. At least
this was not the case at the time when the research was
conducted. So how was this achieved?
An unexciting personality
In this case the trick appears to be not to make the new
corporate identity all that exciting. In any popularity contest
Diageo would be outscored by a margin by Guinness. It is the
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
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321 –333
grey, rather dull dad that let’s its offspring take centre stage
and shine rather than try to steal the limelight.
Affiliations to the Guinness brand are strong. It is a brand
that is seen as both macho and informal (and even a little in
touch with its feminine side). Diageo is considered to have far
less character. What character it has is hidden behind a flat
and even brand personality rated close to a neutral mid-point
on the brand evaluation scale. Compared with Guinness it is
seen as higher on ruthlessness, but lower on machismo and
informality. Not a lot of fun at a party. However, Diageo is
considered more open, concerned and socially responsible,
while Guinness scores on being agreeable.
In short, the new corporate brand personality is seen as
quite different from the old. The old was almost
interchangeable with the core product, the new has a more
detached air. At the product-level consumers’ close emotional
attachment to the brand is an asset. At the corporate level it
can be more limiting. For the customer the product image
clearly matters, but it would appear that the corporate image
matters less so.
Over the years Guinness have successfully pulled off more
than a number of neat marketing tricks. It appears that in
their corporate re-branding they have pulled off another one.
The Diageo corporate brand has been introduced slowly and
with little fanfare. No attempt was made to say to consumers
that Diageo make Guinness, the new corporate name was
allowed to form a different identity. The product affiliation
remains strong for customers. It is undiluted. But Diageo
lives, albeit a quiet life.
(A précis of the article “Does Diageo make your Guinness taste
better?”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)