Bad for Guinness
GUINNESS bemoans the system's unfair- ness. Its bid for Distillers went to the Com- mission (not surprising, with half the Scotch whisky capacity in the two com- panies' hands), while Argyll's escaped. So much for the £2.5 million which Guinness has spent advertising its cause. This is now the favoured tactic of takeover warfare, and Guinness's may be the heaviest bar- rage yet laid down. The City's generals shake their heads. Who (they ask) is it all aimed at? People like us, old boy, or the investment manager of the Pru? Is it likely to influence them? Perhaps financial com- mentators should declare an interest, however indirect, but I know who it influ- ences: it influences me. It is a way of car- rying on the public argument. It can show that argument being won and lost. For the first time I begin to think it works best as a weapon of destruction — more likely to destroy pretensions than to sustain them. Imperial's shells, stuffed with analysis, have done some damage to the glossy facade of Hanson. Argyll may have done more than that to Guinness. It will be har- der, from now on, for Guinness to promote itself as the great brand manager. We all enjoy the Guinless and Genius campaigns, just as we enjoy the black draught — but we drink less and less of it. The investor campaign has, apparently, done its bit for sales, and has the other advantage that Distillers has generously offered to pay for it. But if Segull get Distillers, that bill will gather dust in the pending tray.
Previous page
