Is bigger always better?

The end of the Pernod Ricard and Brown-Forman talks marks the end of what would have been one of the most significant consolidation moves in the global spirits industry in recent years: a combination that would have rivalled the leaders of the industry in portfolio depth and geographic reach.

 

But the fallout reveals a broader challenge facing leadership teams across industries: at what point does scale start to undermine the qualities that make brands valuable in the first place?

 

For decades, bigger has often been treated as synonymous with better. Greater scale promised efficiencies, broader distribution and stronger market positions. But in many sectors today, reach alone is no longer enough: distinctive brands with a clear role in consumers’ lives often have an advantage over larger competitors. The challenge for leaders is ensuring growth strengthens that advantage rather than diluting it.

 

 

Why scale can dilute brand value

The strategic case for consolidation is often straightforward: shared distribution, cost synergies and broader geographic reach. But growth only creates long-term advantage if it strengthens the brands that sit underneath it.

 

Merging with Pernod Ricard would have offered an expanded geographical footprint, but the more important question is whether it would have strengthened Brown-Forman’s brands. With tequila’s popularity rising, Herradura could have become an even stronger player outside North America. Equally, Jack Daniel’s has the potential to further elevate American whiskey globally.

 

But realising that value would require continued investment in brand building, distribution and pricing power, rather than simply relying on the advantages of scale.

 

Other industries demonstrate what can go wrong: the Kraft Heinz merger was designed to create an FMCG powerhouse. Instead, years of tightly managed costs and low spend contributed to a $15 billion write-down and a gradual loss of relevance as consumer preferences shifted towards fresher and more authentic products. It demonstrated that scale alone cannot compensate when brands lose their distinctiveness and consumer connection.

 

Leaders should look beyond the deal rationale and examine how previously acquired brands have performed within a portfolio. Have they continued to grow? Have they gained relevance? Or have they become casualties of neglect or cost-cutting? The best partnerships are those that leave room for continued investment in brand building rather than treating brands as assets to be managed more efficiently.

 

The next question is: what makes customers choose us? If the answer lies in authenticity, cultural relevance, premium positioning or a distinctive brand story, they need to be honest about whether those qualities survive at greater scale.

 

In spirits, premiumisation has heightened the importance of provenance and brand story. A brand’s perceived independence, heritage and craft credentials can be genuine commercial assets. Over-scaling through acquisition can dilute exactly those qualities, and once consumer trust in them is lost, it is often difficult to rebuild.

 

 

Why brand philosophy matters in M&A

Before pursuing any merger, leaders should evaluate cultural fit across three dimensions: decision-making style, risk appetite and brand philosophy. The last of these is often overlooked, yet it may be the most important.

 

If businesses fundamentally disagree on what their brands stand for, how they create value or how they should evolve, integration becomes far more difficult. If those elements are fundamentally misaligned, operational synergies are unlikely to compensate over the long term.

 

The potential challenges in a Pernod Ricard and Brown-Forman illustrate this well. When you combine two large, family-influenced businesses with deeply embedded brand identities and distinct cultures, the friction generated can quietly undermine the very agility that both companies need to respond to shifting consumer tastes.

 

The broader lesson is that scale creates complexity, and complexity can make it harder for brands to stay relevant. In the drinks category, currently navigating a post-pandemic normalisation in volumes, rising health-consciousness among younger consumers, and the explosion of craft and premium alternatives, the ability to move quickly to spot a trend, back a brand, and get it to market matters more than ever. A merged mega-entity often cannot do that as well as a focused, nimble mid-sized player unless they choose to drive a culture of speed and agility, reducing friction for decision-making - not something larger businesses are renowned for.

 

 

Growth without dilution

Perhaps the most important lesson from today’s merger landscape is that growth does not always require consolidation.

 

Businesses would benefit from expanding into closely related occasions, consumer segments or geographies rather than attempting to build scale through major acquisitions. This keeps decision-making lean, preserves cultural coherence and avoids the brand cannibalisation risk that comes with owning too many competing products in the same category.

 

In today’s fragmented drinks market, where consumers have more choice than ever across categories, occasions and lifestyles, simply adding more brands does not automatically create more value.

 

If four premium whisky brands are all targeting broadly the same customer, the business is not necessarily expanding its market. Instead, it is spreading brand and marketing investment across brands competing for the same occasion.

 

The question is not whether a business can own more brands, but whether it can continue to give each brand a clear and distinctive role in consumers’ minds.

 

Growth and scale are not interchangeable. Businesses can grow through premiumisation, selective expansion, partnerships and innovation without necessarily becoming more complex. LVMH and Rémy Cointreau have been best-in-class examples of this in the industry before its current contraction.

 

Scale is not inherently bad. Many businesses genuinely need greater reach, stronger distribution and deeper resources to compete. But the most successful companies will be those that understand exactly what makes their brands distinctive and scale only in ways that strengthen, rather than dilute, that advantage.

 

In increasingly crowded and fragmented markets, brand clarity may prove a more durable source of value than sheer size. 

 

---

 

Anna Hamill is Managing Director of Denomination London

 

Main image courtesy of iStockPhoto.com and Maxiphoto