corporate rebranding and its effect on consumer attitudes

Does Diageo make your Guinness taste better?Laurent Muzellec

DCUBS, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, and

Mary LambkinUCD 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 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 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 samename. 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, 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

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) 321–333

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]

[DOI 10.1108/10610420710779618]

321

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 itscurrent 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 theproduct brand images remain, however, unchanged. The

managerial and academic implications are discussed in thelast 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 acorporation by an external stakeholder (Dowling, 2001;

Davies and Chun, 2002). A consensus seems to have emergedaround the notion that corporate image is an “overall

impression formed as a result of a variety of formal andinformal signals emanating from the company” (Bernstein,

1984). Among, the formal signals, corporate rebranding is

probably the strongest possible way to signify that somethingin the company has changed (Kapferer, 2002). Indeed,

rebrandings are triggered by structural factors such asinternationalisation, 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 theessence of the brand concept (Aaker, 1991). The name is a

critical, core sign of the brand, the “basis for awareness andcommunications 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 conventionalbranding perspective, the name is an instrument at the

disposal of the marketing team, who can use symbolism inorder 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 mostvisible element of a visual identity system (Margulies, 1977;

Melewar and Saunders, 2000). A new name along with a newvisual 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 “companydistinctiveness by using the total corporate communication

mix (advertising, press conferences and releases, staged mediaevents 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 therelatively minor, evolutionary modification of the logos and

slogan to the major, revolutionary creation of a new name.

Evolutionary rebranding describes a fairly minor developmentin the company’s positioning and aesthetics that is so gradualthat it is hardly perceptible to outside observers. For example,Visa International recently revamped its logo to give thecompany a “fresher, more contemporary feel” (Visa, n.d.). Allcompanies go through this process over time through a seriesof cumulative adjustments and innovations. Revolutionaryrebranding, in contrast, describes a major, identifiable changein positioning and aesthetics that fundamentally redefines thecompany. This change is usually symbolised by a radicalchange of name, which would signal to the external audiencethat 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. GuinnessIreland Group, GuinnessUDV Ireland or Diageo Ireland).Yet, depending on the degree of change (evolutionary orrevolutionary), corporate image will be differentially affected.Based on the literature, the following hypotheses are putforward: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 corporatereputation by influencing stakeholders’ images of thecompany (Knox, 2004; Madden et al., 2006). Corporatereputation depends on a wide spectrum of expectationsincluding financial performance and corporate social-responsibility as well as the promise delivered by the brand(Fombrun and van Riel, 2004). The degree of synergybetween the corporate brand and the product brand dependson the brand architecture (Keller, 1998; Varadarajan et al.,2006). The various relations can be illustrated along aspectrum from the “branded house” to the “house of brands”,including “endorsed brands” and “subbrands” (Aaker andJoachimsthaler, 2000). Most companies employ mixedstrategies but it is useful to characterise the two extremesfor the sake of clarity.The “house of brands”, in which there is separation

between the corporate and product brands, avoids “corporatebrand” associations that would adversely affect the image ofthe product brand. Reciprocally, at a corporate level, it allowsthe company to diversify into new product categories withoutrunning any risk of diluting its corporate brand equity. P&G isable to manage brands like Pampers, Iams dog food and Tidelaundry powder without damaging the brand equity of eitherproduct or its own corporate brand equity. On the contrary, ifP&G was, like Nestle, a strong brand, then by endorsing bothIams and Pampers, it could affect negatively the image of thecorporate brand and of the two product brands. Aaker andJoachimsthaler (2000) detail the advantages of a house ofbrands strategy from the product brand perspective:companies should differentiate each brand if a separatebrand can create and own an association, represent a new,different offering, avoid an association or deal with a channelconflict. Consumers may still form their brand images as aresult of corporate behaviour as they realise that there is aconcrete business behind the offering (Fombrun and van Riel,2004; Dacin and Brown, 2006). Yet, separating the corporatebrand 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 · 321–333

322

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 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 strongerin 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 ofcorporate 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 acorporation 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 productimage 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 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”.




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

323

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 thenecessity 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 company’s portfolio. The corporate visual identity of

GuinnessUDV first demarked itself from the traditionalGuinness 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 thehypotheses 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 measurementscales (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; and7 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-UDVor 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:

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)

Figure 1 Business logos Ireland (1997-2002)




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

324

. Questionnaire1A: Guinness Group Ireland and Guinness

Stout (n ¼ 69; n valid ¼ 63).. Questionnaire 2A: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Guinness

Stout (n ¼ 78; n valid ¼ 77).. Questionnaire 3A: Diageo Ireland and Guinness Stout

(n ¼ 68; n valid ¼ 64).. Questionnaire 1B: Guinness Group Ireland and Smirnoff

Ice (n ¼ 67; n valid ¼ 65).. Questionnaire 2B: GuinnessUDV Ireland and Smirnoff

Ice (n ¼ 80; n valid ¼ 76).. Questionnaire 3B: Diageo Ireland and Smirnoff Ice

(n ¼ 71; n valid ¼ 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 ¼ 411). Students who were not

familiar 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 Cronbach’s 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 asacceptable. The results show that the CCS is a reliableinstrument to measure both product and corporate image.

Results

First, the change of perceptions before and after therebranding (i.e. horizontal dynamics) is analysed for boththe corporation and the product; second, the verticalrelationship between the product level and the corporatelevel of the brand hierarchy is then investigated.

Horizontal dynamics: evolution of corporate and

product image

The evolution of the corporate imagery depending on thedegree of corporate name change is first explored, followed bya similar investigation of the evolution of product image.

Evolution of corporate image (H1a and H1b)The average estimates for the seven dimensions of thecorporate personality under the three different names aredisplayed in Table III and Figure 3. The corporate characterscale 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 orcorporate personality, which means that three indicates aneutral standpoint. A t-test is conducted to find out if there isa significant difference between the image of the companywhen named Guinness Group, GuinnessUDV and Diageoand 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 sevendimensions. In contrast, the profile of the image of Diageodiffers significantly from the image of both Guinness UDVand Guinness Group. Two independent sample t-tests areconducted. The table shows some differences for eachpersonality dimension for Guinness Ireland Group andDiageo Ireland. The differences are not significant foragreeableness, competence or chic (p . 0:05) but there is asignificant difference between the mean score for enterprise(t ¼ 23:186; p , 0:001), ruthlessness (t ¼ 23:658),machismo (t ¼ 7:372) and informality (t ¼ 6:129) all atp , 0:001.To evaluate whether knowledge of the rebranding had an

impact on the perception of the company, respondents wereasked 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




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

325

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 (þ0.4), simple,

masculine, casual (þ0.6), tough, easy-going (þ0.75),

rugged (þ0.9). In contrast, Diageo Ireland was perceived as

more concerned, socially responsible (þ0.9), up-to-date

(þ0.7), achievement-oriented, controlling, snobby, young,

elitist (þ0.5), innovative and authoritative (þ0.4).

The personality dimensions of enterprise, ruthlessness,machismo and informality vary significantly. On theenterprise dimensions, it seems that Diageo has managed torejuvenate its image, being perceived as younger, more up-to-date, innovative, imaginative, and exciting. Within theagreeable dimension, there may also be some significantvariations. For example, Diageo is perceived as significantlymore open, concerned and socially responsible whileGuinness and GuinnessUDV are perceived as significantlymore agreeable. In other words, there are no significantdifferences on the aggregated agreeable dimension but thereare significant differences on some individual items. Bothhypotheses (H1a and H1b) are therefore supported. Images ofthe company do not vary significantly when the name changeis evolutionary but images do vary significantly when aradically new name is introduced.

Evolution of product image (H2a and H2b)In this section, the evolution of product image following achange in the brand architecture is analysed. The hypothesesposit that product brand image will not vary significantlywhen the corporate name is not radically changed (H2a) andthat product brand image will vary over time when thecorporate name is radically changed – modification of thebrand architecture (H2b). To evaluate whether a change in thebrand architecture may also affect product image, sixsituations (corresponding to the six questionnaires) areconsidered.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’simage is compared under the three same conditions. In orderto explore the impact of a corporate rebranding on productimage, a one-way analysis of variance among the three groupsis conducted. The three conditions correspond to the threestages of the rebranding process. For Guinness Stout, thevariance on each of the seven dimensions under the threeconditions is not significant. For Smirnoff Ice, the results arealso not significant for the agreeableness, enterprise,competence, chic and ruthlessness dimensions. However, forthe machismo dimensions, there is a statistically significantdifference under the three conditions (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 6:61,p , 0:005). Equally the perception of informality variessignificantly depending on the endorser (F (2, 204Þ ¼ 10:25,p , 0:001). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD testindicated that the mean score on machismo was significantlydifferent (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 notbetween the Guinness Group and GuinnessUDV nor betweenGuinnessUDV 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-testGuinness

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 NS

Ruthlessness 2.6035 2.5837 NS 2.6035 2.9723 0.01

Machismo 4.0417 3.9412 NS 4.0417 3.2865 0.01

Informality 3.4648 3.3682 NS 3.4648 2.8047 0.01

Figure 3 Personality profile of the corporation under three differentnames




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

326

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 thatendorses 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 endorsedby Diageo, than when endorsed by Guinness Group orGuinness UDV. It seems that respondents are contrastingSmirnoff Ice’s personality with Guinness’s personality. AsGuinness is seen as macho and informal, respondentsemphasise the feminine and formal aspects of Smirnoff Icewhen endorsed by Guinness. The behaviour of respondentscan 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 itwith 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 orradically 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 thecorporate 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; and2 after rebranding, where the two entities have different

names.

Before running a regression model between product andcorporate image, the degree of correlation between the twovariables depending on the brand architecture needs to beevaluated.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 linearrelationship 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 theproduct and the corporation share the same name. For the

agreeableness and the informality dimensions, therelationship 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 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,

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)




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

327

the scores on the machismo dimensions for Guinness Stoutare relatively high. Guinness Stout is perceived as masculine(4.2), tough (3.8) and rugged (3.9). The scores for thecorporation, i.e. Guinness Group or GuinnessUDVare almostidentical; 4.3, 3.9 and 3.8 respectively. Yet, under the Diageoname the scores are significantly lower: masculine (3.7);tough (3.2), and rugged (2.8). The same reasoning applies tothe informality dimension, which seems to be directlyinfluenced by the third pillar of the product brand:“Communion”, which refers to the way the product isconsumed i.e. “people connecting with one another in a pub.”As a result, Guinness, the company, shows great similaritieswith Guinness the product, being perceived as equally casualand simple.

H3a, which states that there is an image spillover from theproduct to the corporation when the two entities share thesame 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 researcher’s own understanding of the Guinness

Corporate Image heritage – informed through the case

study. 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 a

corporation 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 0.000

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 thesame name

Guinness Stout Guinness Corp.

Agreeableness 3.40 3.12

Enterprise 3.00 2.73

Competence 3.40 3.68

Chic 2.70 2.65

Ruthlessness 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




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

328

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 portfolioin 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 dimensionsbetween 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 GuinnessStout, 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 shownthat 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 processimplemented 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 aradically 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 Guinness Ireland Group andGuinnesssUDV 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 thecontrary, 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 productimage to corporate image. The hypothesis H3a, that corporateimage was derived from product image, was accepted.

Reciprocally, on some key traits that can be attributed to

historical corporate behaviour, there is a reciprocal spillovereffect 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 brandedhouse 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 allowsthe 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 thatcorporate images may be irrelevant to consumers – only

product images matter. For consumers, corporate images

seem to be irrelevant and ineffective in changing theirperceptions of the product.Under its former product brand name, the company

displayed personality traits that were aligned with theintended 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 brands”configuration




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

329

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.

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




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

330

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

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 . . ., 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.




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

331

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


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 CityUniversity 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 ofBrand 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 StrategicMarketing. She has published in the Journal of Marketing, theInternational Journal of Research in Marketing and the EuropeanJournal 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 aparticular interest in the topic covered may then read the articlein toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description ofthe research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of thematerial 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:




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

332

. 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 oldpeople atGuinness. It

seems that a neat trick has beenpulled off.Knowing thatDiageo

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

grey, rather dull dad that let’s its offspring take centre stageand 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 intouch with its feminine side). Diageo is considered to have farless character. What character it has is hidden behind a flatand even brand personality rated close to a neutral mid-pointon the brand evaluation scale. Compared with Guinness it isseen as higher on ruthlessness, but lower on machismo andinformality. Not a lot of fun at a party. However, Diageo isconsidered 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 almostinterchangeable with the core product, the new has a moredetached air. At the product-level consumers’ close emotionalattachment to the brand is an asset. At the corporate level itcan be more limiting. For the customer the product imageclearly matters, but it would appear that the corporate imagematters less so.Over the years Guinness have successfully pulled off more

than a number of neat marketing tricks. It appears that intheir corporate re-branding they have pulled off another one.The Diageo corporate brand has been introduced slowly andwith little fanfare. No attempt was made to say to consumersthat Diageo make Guinness, the new corporate name wasallowed to form a different identity. The product affiliationremains strong for customers. It is undiluted. But Diageolives, albeit a quiet life.

(A precis of the article “Does Diageo make your Guinness tastebetter?”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)




Volume 16 · Number 5 · 2007 · 321–333

333

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

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

corporate rebranding and its effect on consumer attitudes

Documents