Brand Management: Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?

8/7/2019 Brand Management: Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?

1/13

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

AbstractPurpose The paper aims to analyse the effect of abandoning a venerable brand name (Guinness) and all of the reputation value that it embodied infavour of a new, untested name (Diageo). The paper seeks to examine the extent to which this affects consumers perceptions of the product and thecorporation.Design/methodology/approach Six hypotheses were tested in the study by surveying corporate and product brand images among a group ofconsumers (n 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 confirmsthat image spillovers occur between the corporate and the product levels. Corporate image is derived from product image, and vice versa, when the twoshare 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 expenseof 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 brandarchitecture 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, andchange 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 thispaper seeks to address.

Names are the critical, core sign of the brand; they

constitute the basis for the corporate communications

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

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) 321333

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420710779618]

321


2/13

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 changedepending 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 managedin 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.

Evolutionary rebranding describes a fairly minor development

in the companys 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 changein 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 Nestle, 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


Volume 16 Number 5 2007 321333

322


3/13

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) aswell as from the corporations 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 thecorporation 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.

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 caseThe 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 outstandingcorporate 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 widows 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 Guinnesss 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.





323


4/13

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 aspectthat 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 companys 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

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 undergraduatebusiness students (n 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 f ollowing the m erger, and the new nam e

corresponded to the three stages of the rebranding process.

The two products chosen were Guinness Stout and Smirnoff

Ice. S mirnof f Ice w as 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 inorder to evaluate the impact of the change of name and its

relation to product name. The combinations tested were as

follows:

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 changedH2b 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)

Figure 1 Business logos Ireland (1997-2002)





324


5/13

. Questionnaire1A: Guinness Group Ireland and Guinness

Stout (n 69; n valid 63).. Questionnaire 2A: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Guinness

Stout (n 78; n valid 77).. Questionnaire 3A: Diageo Ireland and Guinness Stout

(n 68; n valid 64).. Questionnaire 1B: Guinness Group Ireland and Smirnoff

Ice (n 67; n valid 65).. Questionnaire 2B: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Smirnoff

Ice (n 80; n valid 76).. Questionnaire 3B: Diageo Ireland and Smirnoff Ice

(n 71; n valid 66).

Groups varied slightly in size due to the difference in

attendance for each class. 55 per cent of the respondents were

male, 98 per cent were aged 18 to 24 and 95 per cent were

Irish nationals. Missing values were treated according to the

following rules: If brand personality missing values were more

than ten out of a total of 98 traits (49*2; for both product and

corporation), then the case was deleted. Based on this rule, 22

cases were deleted (n valid 411). Students who were notfamiliar with either the company or the product were asked to

skip the questions pertaining to the unfamiliar product or

company. Out of the 22 cases deleted, nine were removed

because of the absence of answers for the Diageo personality

questionnaire.

In total, 128 valid observations were obtained for the

Guinness Ireland Group, 153 for Guinness UDV and 130 for

Diageo. Smirnoff Ice was evaluated by 207 respondents, and

Guinness Stout by 204 respondents.

Reliability was measured by calculating Cronbachs alpha

coefficient for the seven dimensions of the corporate character

scale (Table II). All dimensions for both product and

corporate personality produced a Cronbach alpha coefficient

equal or in excess of 0.70, in line with what is considered as

acceptable. The results show that the CCS is a reliable

instrument to measure both product and corporate image.

ResultsFirst, the change of perceptions before and after the

rebranding (i.e. horizontal dynamics) is analysed for both

the corporation and the product; second, the vertical

relationship between the product level and the corporate

level of the brand hierarchy is then investigated.

Horizontal dynamics: evolution of corporate and

product image

The evolution of the corporate imagery depending on the

degree of corporate name change is first explored, followed by

a similar investigation of the evolution of product image.

Evolution of corporate image (H1a and H1b)

The average estimates for the seven dimensions of the

corporate personality under the three different names aredisplayed in Table III and Figure 3. The corporate character

scale is a five-point Likert scale; for each of the 49 traits,

respondents are asked to state whether they strongly agree (1)

or strongly disagree (5) that the trait describes the product or

corporate personality, which means that three indicates a

neutral standpoint. A t-test is conducted to find out if there is

a significant difference between the image of the company

when named Guinness Group, GuinnessUDV and Diageo

and these results are presented in Table III.

Table III shows that the profiles of the corporation under

the two versions of the Guinness name are extremely similar;

they show no significant differences in rating on the seven

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

conducted. The table shows some differences for each

personality dimension for Guinness Ireland Group and

Diageo Ireland. The differences are not significant for

agreeableness, competence or chic (p . 0:05) but there is a

significant difference between the mean score for enterprise

(t 23:186; p , 0:001) , r uth le ss ne ss (t 23:658),machismo (t 7:372) and informality (t 6:129) all atp , 0:001.

To evaluate whether knowledge of the rebranding had an

impact on the perception of the company, respondents were

asked to state whether they knew the new name for the

Table II Cronbach alpha coefficient per dimensions

Dimensions Product brand personality Corporate personality

Agreeableness 0.87 0.79

Enterprise 0.85 0.87

Competence 0.78 0.71

Chic 0.73 0.76

Ruthlessness 0.77 0.81

Machismo 0.91 0.83

Informality 0.75 0.78

Figure 2 Hypotheses in the context of the case





325


6/13

Guinness Ireland Group or GuinnessUDV (n 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 itsname 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 corporationwith 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 (0.4), simple,

masculine, casual (0.6), tough, easy-going (0.75),

rugged (0.9). In contrast, Diageo Ireland was perceived as

more concerned, socially responsible (0.9), up-to-date

(0.7), achievement-oriented, controlling, snobby, young,

elitist (0.5), innovative and authoritative (0.4).

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 significantlymore 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 thebrand 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. G uinness G roup,

GuinnessUDV or Diageo. The evolution of Smirnoff Ices

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, 204 6:61,p , 0:005). Equally the perception of informality varies

significantly depending on the endorser (F (2, 204 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 1:56,SD 0:67) and Diageo (M 2:04, SD 0:81) but notbetween the Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV nor between

GuinnessUDV and Diageo. For Informality, differences of

Table III Comparison of corporate personality under old and new names

Guinness

Ireland Group

Guinness

UDV Ireland

Sign. two-tailed

t-test

Guinness

Ireland Group

Diageo

Ireland

Sign. two-tailed

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 NSRuthlessness 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 differentnames





326


7/13

product image were significant (p , 0:05) between Guinness

Group (M 2:91, SD 0:82) and G uinnessU DV(M 3:09, SD 0:97) and Diageo (M 3:52, SD 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 isperceived 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 Ices personality with Guinnesss 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 relationshipsdepending 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

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 houseconfiguration (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 0:264) explained by the machismo image ofthe product. The variability in the corporate chic dimension is

24.5 per cent (R square 0:245) explained by the productchic dimension; the variability of corporate perceived

ruthlessness at 20.2 per cent (R square 0:202) can beaccounted 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, wecompared 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,

Table IV Correlation between the different personality dimensions of a brand and its endorser

Guinness Stout/Guinness

Ireland Group

Guinness Stout/

Guinness UDV Ireland

Guinness Stout/

Diageo Ireland

Smirnoff Ice/Guinness

Ireland Group

Smirnoff Ice/Guinness

UDV Ireland

Smirnoff Ice/

Diageo Ireland

N valid 63 77 64 65 76 66

Agreeable N/S 0.283 * N/S 20.394 * * 20.341 * * 0.277 *

Enterprise 0.483 * * 0.361 * * 20.428 * * N/S N/S N/S

Competence 0.420 * * 0.258 * * N/S N/S 20.250 * 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 * 20.316 * 20.256 * N/S

Informality N/S 0.346 * * N/S 20.336 * * 0.240 * 20.258 *

Notes: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); * * correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)





327


8/13

the scores on the machismo dimensions for Guinness Stout

are relatively high. Guinness Stout is perceived as masculine

(4.2), tough (3.8) and rugged (3.9). The scores for the

corporation, i.e. Guinness Group or GuinnessUDV are almost

identical; 4.3, 3.9 and 3.8 respectively. Yet, under the Diageo

name the scores are significantly lower: masculine (3.7);

tough (3.2), and rugged (2.8). The same reasoning applies 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.

H3a, which states that there is an image spillover from the

product to the corporation when the two entities share the

same name, is therefore accepted.

If corporate image is clearly influenced by product image on

most dimensions, the effect might be reciprocal; i.e. product

image can be the result of corporate image at least on some

specific traits. In this section, we test H3b by investigating

traits that are more specifically associated with corporate

image. Those items have been subjectively selected based on

the researchers own understanding of the Guinness

Corporate Image heritage informed through the casestudy. The items tested were: concerned, reassuring, honest,

sincere and socially responsible as they communicate the

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

measure for Guinness Corporation predicts 55.6 per cent of

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.

Based on the results, the H3b that corporate image also

influences product imagery on some historical, corporate

characteristics, can be accepted.

Corporate brand isolation/ neutralisation (H4)

The results of the survey have shown so far that when acorporation and its main product share the same name,

corporate image is influenced by product image. Equally, the

results have shown that some traits of the product image are

influenced by the corporate image heritage.

On the contrary, the change of name to Diageo Ireland

should diminish direct associations between the corporation

and its product. The correlation showed that there was no

significant relationship between product image of either

Guinness or Smirnoff Ice and the corporate image of Diageo.

This means that product image does not influence corporate

image and vice versa.

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 0.000Machismo 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 thesame name

Guinness Stout Guinness Corp.

Agreeableness 3.40 3.12

Enterprise 3.00 2.73

Competence 3.40 3.68

Chic 2.70 2.65Ruthlessness 2.38 2.69

Machismo 3.73 4.07

Informality 3.79 3.07

Figure 4 Personality shape of a product and a corporation with thesame name





328


9/13

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 branddiffers 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

modify consumers corporate image was verified with the

CCS. The survey shows that the variation in perception of

personality between G uinness Ireland G roup and

GuinnesssUDV was not significant (H1a) , w hile 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

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

Figure 5 Asymmetrical personalities in a house of brandsconfiguration





329


10/13

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 aresult, 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 lessfriendly and agreeable; but it has managed to shape an

image aligned with the requirement of todays 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 fromBSN to the Danone Group has increased the companys

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 brandsare 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.

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 moreby 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 adynamic 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





330


11/13

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 imagemanagement, 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 Critiqueof 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

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


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 . . ., C ya n

Communications, London.

Kaikati, J.G. (2003), Lessons from Accentures 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.

K nox, S . ( 20 04 ), 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 andrecognition 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.





331


12/13

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: howcorporate 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


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

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: [email protected] 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 Marketingand 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 formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executivesa 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 fewIrish, and Guinnesss 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, aname 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 worlds

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:





332


13/13

. 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

w hen the corporate nam e 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

Diageoit seems are justas smartas the old people atGuinness.It

seems that a neat trick hasbeen pulledoff. Knowing that Diageohas 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

grey, rather dull dad that lets 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 isseen 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 dif ferent f rom the old. T he old w as alm ost

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 precis of the article Does Diageo make your Guinness taste

better?. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)





To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Brand Management: Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?