Where did Diageo come from? How did it start? What mergers where made and when? What American whiskey distilleries were acquired and when. What were the ultimate outcomes of these acquisitions?
Thank you from the historically challenged,
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
Diageo is one of the world's leading consumer goods companies. Formed in December 1997 through the merger of GrandMet and Guinness, Diageo has an outstanding portfolio of world-famous food and drinks brands including Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker, J&B, Gordon's, Malibu, Baileys, Guinness and Tanqueray --Across more than 200 countries and many cultures
1749 -- Giacomo Justerini arrives in London from Italy and forms the Johnson and Justerini partnership - predecessor of Justerini and Brooks
1779 Johnson and Justerini start selling Scotch whisky
1831 Alfred Brooks purchases Johnson & Justerini and re-names it Justerini & Brooks
1851 Justerini & Brooks join forces with Twiss Brownings and Hallowes Ltd - agents for Hennessy cognac since 1840 - to form United Wine Traders Ltd
1962 W&A Gilbey merge with United Wine Traders to form International Distillers & Vintners (IDV)
1972 GrandMet acquires IDV
1997 GrandMet and Guinness merge; United Distillers & Vintners (UDV) created from the integration of the IDV and UD businesses
2000 • Diageo plc and Pernod Ricard SA to acquire Seagram spirits and wine business (December)
Mike and Chuck can give you the acquisition trail in the U.S.
Diageo is the parent firm of such other brands as Pillsbury including Old El Paso and Burger King.
>2000 • Diageo plc and Pernod Ricard SA to acquire Seagram spirits and wine
> business (December)
I have a dumb question.
What does "plc" mean? I always see "Diageo plc" and it's confused me
Is it some business name abbreviation like "Inc.", "Co.", or "Ltd." ?
Does it mean that they're controlled by the Illuminati? The Masons? Martians?
PLC: Acronym for public limited company. The designation on a U.K. company's name indicates that shares of the issue may be purchased by the public and traded freely on the open market.
In other words, Masons.
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://cowdery.home.netcom.com>--Chuck Cowdery</A>
and I thought it was the Martians...
Thanks for that timeline Greg! Good intel. Any idea as to why Diageo does not mention either George Dickel or I.W. Harper among their brands?
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
sorry for the delay in answering, Linn.
These bourbon brands are not 'big fish' to a huge firm like Diagio. While they have some interest in niche markets and niche products, they normally focus on the big sellers where the big money is.
To sidetrack that is one reason Sazerac, being a smaller spirits firm, can let Gary and Ken at Buffalo Trace focus on experimentation and mutiple brands while Fortune Brands' Beam puts a lot of money behind white label, then Knob Creek - their best selling small batch.
But we can't be fooled. Most business people have to balance any love of crafted product with the money to be made from marketing to the masses. More people willl buy a Ford Focus (one of the world's best sellers) than a Jaguar (also now owned by Ford). Thus, the total sales of Focus is likely MUCH more than the total sales of Jaguar and there is more profit in the Focus line.
Sorry, I am carrying on....
That brings me to my biggest complaint about the bourbon business: If the big companies don't really care about the finely crafted whiskeys, then why won't they PLEASE stop buying them up? Let somebody make them that cares about the bourbon instead of maximal profit.
Sorry. I get excited, sometimes.
Re: Down With Diageo!
Tim please allow me to butt in at this point. We Southeners tend to attach ourselves to moral causes. In this case it is the loss of bourbon heritage. It is right that we should rant and rave. All we are saying to those that would listen is 'pay attention'!
"Let those who have eyes see. Let those that have ears hear" - Jesus Christ
We Southeners also like to quote Jesus and have GOD on our side because.. well... because it's a Southern thing! [DAMNIT!] Don't try get me confused when I know I'm right. You sound like bleedin' MARY flippin' POPPINS.. " Just spoonful of scotch makes the distilleries go down...the distilleries go down..the distilleries go down".
Here are some hard facts - U.D.V./Diageo bought out Bernhiem; Stitzel-Weller and Glenmore. ALL DEAD!
Who killed 'em? Hmmm? Did they commit suicide? Or were they murdered?!
Just a spoonful of scotch makes the distilleries go down ..the distilleries go down...the distilleries go down
HEY that's the wrong song! Just a spoonful of bourbon makes the scotchies go down..the scotchies go down..the scotchies go down. Just a spoonful of bourbon makes the scotchies go down in the most delightful way!!!
BOURBON - THE BEST TASTING WHISKEY ON THE PLANET!
Lock 'n' Load!
Have Shotglass. Will Travel.
Tim, first I think you may be reading something into my message that is not there. I do not suggest that they don't care at all about the business. They would not buy a company if they did not have interest in it. Yet, they are MORE interested in those brands that give them the greatest return.
If someone has a day job and a night job and their day job pays all of their bills while their night job gives them extra money (for bourbon?), it makes sense that if their day job work starts to suffer because they are working two jobs they may decide to quit the night job or at least cut back on their night hours. The big companies are always making priorities and often the smaller brands suffer.
Which leads to another point. The brands that get sold sometimes would not have been sold if they had been bigger brands and more profitable. Business is business. We all want to get pai d for what we do and firms must look after profit. If some of those distilleries that went up for sale had been able to be more profitable there would have been no reason to sell.
Re big firms worse? Seagrams was a big company. Yet, in the discussions I've had with craftsmen who've worked for Seagrams they felt the top execs. really cared about qualtiy -- so big may not always be bad. (Of course they made more money by selling Four Roses as an export so I suppose some will argue about those decisions for us drinking here.)
Having said that, there are lots of examples of dumb management decisions. Managers are people and make the same kind of dumb mistakes (heard of Enron?) that others do. So sometimes some idiot just simply killed a good business.
Finally, it has been said in this forum by others that we have more quality bourbons with greater variety than was the case 15 - 25 years ago. If that is true, we can't be too harsh on the industry.
Hope this answer isn't too much of 'being carried away.' I'm really not trying to defend anything. Just answer your question.