Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Teremana has become one of the fastest-growing tequila brands in America. The story is compelling: a genuinely involved celebrity founder, small-batch production, and accessible pricing. It's a different model from Casamigos - less lifestyle marketing, more hands-on authenticity.
But here's what I've wondered: does "authentic celebrity involvement" actually change consumer perception? Or does any celebrity ownership trigger the same scepticism, regardless of how real the involvement is?
I ran a study with six US consumers to find out. The results were humbling for anyone banking on celebrity authenticity as a selling point.
The Participants
I recruited six personas aged 26-42 from largely rural and suburban contexts: rural Connecticut, rural Florida, rural Virginia, rural New Jersey, rural Alabama, and Bloomington, Minnesota. The income spread was significant - from a teacher earning $33k to a construction manager pulling in $225k. The mix included a Navy retiree, a data analyst, a sales manager, and an office manager.
What they had in common: they were all practical, value-focused buyers. Not tequila snobs, but not impulse purchasers either. They evaluate spirits thoughtfully and remember when they've been disappointed.
Default Scepticism Is Universal
The first finding was immediate and consistent: every participant began with scepticism upon learning Teremana is celebrity-owned. Not neutral curiosity. Not conditional openness. Scepticism.
One participant, a data analyst earning $150k, captured it directly:
"Marketing budget first, liquid second. That's my assumption until proven otherwise."
Another participant, a career-driven sales manager, reframed the celebrity label as a tax:
"Celebrity on the bottle? That's a marketing tax. I'm paying for the name, not the tequila."
This was true regardless of income. The construction manager earning $225k and the teacher earning $33k expressed nearly identical initial reactions. Celebrity ownership starts at a trust deficit.
The Liquid-First Decision Framework
So how do these consumers actually decide? They follow a remarkably pragmatic, verifiable process:
First, blind or side-by-side tastings. Multiple participants described the same test: try it neat first, then in a simple margarita. Compare against mid-shelf options without knowing brands.
A Navy retiree in Florida described her approach:
"Taste head-to-head. Neat first, then a simple marg. If I can't tell the difference or the competitor wins, I'm buying the cheaper one."
Second, production transparency. Participants wanted to see the NOM (distillery registration number), confirmation of 100% agave, and clear additive policies. These boring production details matter more than celebrity involvement stories.
Third, consistent bottle-to-bottle quality. If the second bottle doesn't match the first, trust evaporates regardless of how good the initial experience was.
Fourth, price-per-pour alignment. No premium for the celebrity name unless the liquid demonstrably justifies it.
Fifth, next-day assessment. Multiple participants mentioned hangovers as a quality heuristic. "How I feel the next morning tells me more about the tequila than any marketing."
Use-Case Differentiation
An important distinction emerged around how tequila is consumed:
For cocktails and mixers, celebrity tequila is acceptable. The margarita masks imperfections. The context is casual. Standards are lower.
For sipping neat, celebrity tequila must prove itself. This is where the liquid has to stand alone, where quality becomes undeniable, where the celebrity story becomes irrelevant to the experience.
The implication: if a celebrity brand can't win the neat pour, it will forever be relegated to mixer status regardless of marketing investment.
Founder Involvement: A Minor Nudge
I asked specifically about The Rock's demonstrable involvement with Teremana - the distillery visits, the social media showing production, the apparent hands-on approach. Does authentic involvement change anything?
The answer: slightly. Genuine, hands-on involvement offers a conditional trust lift of perhaps 5-10%. But that lift is insufficient to justify premium pricing or drive loyalty without underlying product performance.
What would actually matter? Demonstrable operational receipts - documented sourcing decisions, quality control vetoes, production choices that show genuine involvement beyond photo opportunities. Third-party validated evidence, not PR claims of passion projects.
One participant, the office manager in Minnesota, noted a slight credibility lift from perceived work ethic - The Rock's reputation for discipline translating loosely to an assumption of product quality. But this was a minor factor, not a decisive one.
The Celebrity Tax Ceiling
Price sensitivity was remarkably consistent. At price parity between a celebrity-owned tequila and a comparable non-celebrity option, most participants would choose the non-celebrity bottle.
I asked the construction manager earning $225k - someone with significant disposable income - to quantify his tolerance for celebrity premium:
"Maybe $10 for a signature on the bottle. Maybe. That's basically zero margin for celebrity markup."
The implication is stark: celebrity ownership cannot justify premium pricing. If anything, it requires price discipline to overcome the assumed marketing tax.
Rural Market Dynamics
Because my sample skewed rural, specific market dynamics emerged that may not appear in urban-focused research:
Availability trumps marketing. If a tequila isn't consistently on the shelf at local stores, it doesn't matter how compelling the celebrity story is. Inconsistent distribution destroys trust and prevents repeat purchase.
Local word-of-mouth outweighs national advertising. The teacher in Alabama relies on store clerks, neighbours, and church contacts for recommendations. Celebrity marketing barely registers.
Community events beat influencer campaigns. Low-gloss local tastings with spec-focused talking points would be more effective than high-production social media content.
The Forensic Buyer Segment
A distinct segment emerged: higher-income, technical/professional buyers who approach tequila purchasing forensically. The construction manager and data analyst in my sample both exhibited this behaviour.
They track NOM numbers. They research additive policies. They look for batch notes. They demand production specifications that most consumers never consider.
For this segment, celebrity ownership provides zero positive signal - and potentially negative signal if it suggests marketing focus over production focus. They will not pay premium without blind taste test wins against benchmarks.
What This Means for Celebrity Spirit Brands
If I were advising Teremana or any authenticity-forward celebrity tequila brand, here's what I'd take away:
Create a transparency card. NOM-forward positioning, additive policy, cooking and milling methods, distillery credits. Lead with boring production facts.
Run "Prove-It" blind pours. Neat plus simple margarita against mid-shelf competitors. Publish win rates. Let the liquid speak.
Audit pricing for celebrity tax. Price at or below mid-shelf parity. Eliminate any perceived premium for the name.
Arm retail clerks with spec sheets. Boring specifications over celebrity hype. Train the recommendation layer.
Launch trial-size formats. A 375ml bottle reduces trial risk for sceptical buyers.
Guarantee rural on-shelf availability. Inconsistent distribution kills repeat purchase in markets where national marketing doesn't reach.
The Bigger Picture
What struck me most about this research was how little authenticity narratives actually matter to consumers. The Rock may be genuinely involved with Teremana. That involvement may be real, documented, and verifiable. But consumers don't care - at least not until the liquid proves itself.
Celebrity ownership begins at a trust deficit. Authentic involvement reduces that deficit slightly, but doesn't eliminate it. The only thing that truly converts trial into loyalty is proof-in-glass performance that wins blind tastings at competitive prices.
Because at the end of the day, consumers aren't buying a relationship with The Rock. They're buying tequila. And the tequila has to be good on its own terms.
What the Research Revealed
We asked real consumers to share their thoughts. Here's what they told us:
The Rock positions Teremana as his personal passion project, not just a licensing deal. Does knowing a celebrity is genuinely involved in the business (vs. just lending their name) change your percept
Kaysee Prox, 38, Retiree (Independent), Rural, FL, USA:
Bottom line up front: slightly. Genuine involvement moves the needle a hair, but I still judge what’s in the glass and how the operation runs. Passion reads like marketing until it survives my checklist. What would actually change my perception:
Proof in the bottle: neat sip does not taste like vanilla frosting or perfume, and two pours do not punish me the next day.
Consistency over time: same profile six months later. If batch drift shows up, I’m out.
Sane pricing: no celeb tax, no dumb limited drops, no stealth hikes once hype builds.
Clear, boring info: where it’s made, how it’s made, and who’s accountable when something goes sideways. Spare me the inspirational monologue.
Owning misses: if a run is off, say so and fix it instead of spinning a story.
So yeah, him being hands-on could soften my side-eye, but it does not earn a free pass. Name on the label starts at a minus for me. Hands-on involvement maybe brings it back to neutral if the product and behavior back it up. Otherwise, I’ll still pick the quiet non-celeb bottle unless a blind taste proves me wrong. You buying for a house marg or for folks who are fans of the guy? Blanco or reposado, and what’s your price ceiling?
Sabreena Boring, 26, Sales Manager, Rural, VA, USA:
Short answer: no. Calling it a passion project doesn’t move my trust meter. I’ve heard that pitch a hundred times, and it reads like polished PR unless it shows up in the glass and on the receipt. If a celebrity is actually involved, cool, but it only matters if I see hard signals: cleaner taste, stable batches, and fair shelf price. Otherwise it’s still a celebrity tax in my head. What would actually shift me:
Blind pour win against my $30-40 regular.
Consistency across bottles month to month in my rural stores.
Straight labeling with real production details, not vibe copy.
Price discipline that matches the drink, not the billboard.
So yeah, “hands-on” talk by itself doesn’t change my perception. The product has to prove it.
Derrius Spiker, 30, Construction Manager, Rural, CT, USA:
Short answer: minor bump, not a free pass. Most celeb booze is a licensing sticker, so baseline is eye roll. If they’re actually owner-operator, I shift from “no” to “prove it.” Words are cheap. What moves my needle is proof, not PR:
Time on-site and real calls on cut points, barrels, and rejects. Not photo ops.
Clear specs on who distills, process, and an additive policy that isn’t fuzzy.
Batch notes and consistency bottle to bottle. Same nose, same finish.
QC data and someone with veto power saying no to bad runs.
Price that matches the juice, not the follower count.
If those boxes hit and a blind pour beats my mid-shelf or ties at a lower cost per ounce, it gets in rotation. If not, it’s just a pricier label. Net: genuine involvement is a 5% trust lift, not 50. Still has to earn it in the glass. Paying a “passion project” premium without performance is a $10 upcharge for a 50-cent upgrade.
Jessie Wu, 30, Data Analyst, Rural, NJ, USA:
It moves me from an eye roll to a cautious “okay, show me.” Genuine involvement beats a slap-your-name-on-it licensing deal, but it still doesn’t earn trust by default. How it changes my perception:
Slight positive nudge. If the celeb is actually signing off on cuts, funding proper agave contracts, and backing the distillery team to avoid cupcake flavors, I give a little credit.
But no free pass. Passion project talk is marketing until it shows up in the glass. I’m still judging on taste, process signals, and price sanity - not behind-the-scenes sizzle reels.
Tiebreaker at best. Real involvement might get it into a blind lineup instead of me ignoring it. That’s it. Win the pour, not the press release.
If The Rock is truly in the weeds, great - that earns curiosity. But my default filter stays the same: prove it in a neat sip and a simple 2:1:1 margarita. Otherwise it’s just a nicely produced ribbon-cutting with no buses leaving on time.
If you were choosing between Teremana and a similarly-priced tequila without celebrity backing, what would tip your decision? Does the founder's personal involvement in production matter?
Derrius Spiker, 30, Construction Manager, Rural, CT, USA:
If price is the same, the non-celeb bottle gets first crack. Less marketing tax baked in. Taste and transparency win, not a famous face.
Side-by-side pour against my mid-shelf baseline. Cleaner nose, no fake vanilla-candy, pepper finish that hangs a bit, not hot or thin.
Simple mix test: ranch water or a no-syrup marg. If it still tastes like tequila and not lime-sugar, it passes.
Label and specs I can trust. Who actually distills it, batch info, 100% agave, no perfume-y finish that screams additives.
Consistency and shelf access. If I have to hunt it or the next bottle drinks different, I’m out.
Price per pour. If it’s equal on taste, I buy the cheaper one. Every time.
Founder involvement only matters if it’s real: they spend time on-site, set cut points, pick barrels, and have veto power on bad runs. If it’s just Instagram and a hat in the gift shop, it counts zero. Net: Teremana only wins if the blind pour beats the comparable bottle or ties and costs less. Otherwise I’m not paying for a billboard on the bottle - that’s a $10 premium for a $0.50 upgrade.
Kaysee Prox, 38, Retiree (Independent), Rural, FL, USA:
Bottom line up front: all else equal, I pick the non-celeb bottle unless the celeb juice wins in a blind taste. Name recognition does not move my needle. What actually tips it for me:
Taste head-to-head: neat first, then a simple marg or ranch water. If I get vanilla cupcake or fake sweetness, it’s out.
Next-day feel: two pours should not punish me. If it does, pass.
Consistency and availability: I want the same profile next month, not some hyped batch I have to chase.
Label honesty vs hype: spare me the storytime. Give me clear, boring info and be done with it.
Price-per-pour: if it drinks below its bracket, it doesn’t earn shelf space.
Bottle practicality: fits the cabinet, pours clean, doesn’t look like a trophy. I’m not decorating my kitchen with it.
Does the founder’s involvement matter? Only if it shows up in the glass and the way they run the operation - consistent quality, sane pricing, and owning it when they miss. Photo ops and inspirational captions do nothing for me. If the non-celeb brand is steady and quiet, that wins nine times out of ten. You buying for sipping or mixers? Blanco, reposado, or anejo? And what’s your ceiling on price?
Sabreena Boring, 26, Sales Manager, Rural, VA, USA:
Same price, the non-celebrity bottle gets the edge by default. If Teremana wants the spot, it has to win a blind pour and feel like I’m not paying a celebrity tax. Founder involvement means nothing to me. I don’t need a behind-the-scenes story, I need cleaner taste and repeatable quality. A selfie in a barrel room doesn’t change what’s in my glass. What actually tips it:
Side-by-side taste: 1 oz neat, then a simple marg or tequila-soda. Cleaner agave, less fake vanilla, less burn wins.
Consistency: Can I buy it again in rural shelves and does it taste the same next month.
Price floor: Real street price, not promo hype. If they drink the same, the cheaper bottle wins.
Label clarity: Straight info on where it’s made and how. Real details beat celebrity talk.
Bottle practicality: Pours clean, stores fine, no heavy gimmick glass I’m paying for.
So no, the founder’s hands-on story doesn’t matter. Blind taste and consistency decide it.
Jessie Wu, 30, Data Analyst, Rural, NJ, USA:
All else equal, I default to the non-celeb bottle. If price is the same, why pay the hype tax. Marketing doesn’t make agave taste better. What would actually tip me:
Taste, blind. Neat and a dead-simple 2:1:1 margarita. If it shows roasted agave, pepper, a little mineral snap - not vanilla frosting and air freshener - it wins. Prove on-time performance in the glass.
Process signals on the label. I look for a clear NOM, where it’s made, and signs it’s not diffuser-candy. Longer ferment, traditional cooking, additive-free claims - those nudge me toward trust. If it’s from a mega-factory pumping dozens of SKUs, I’m skeptical.
Price behavior and availability. Stable pricing, not constant promo dumping. On the shelf when I need it, not a fake scarcity play.
Packaging sanity. Bottle that fits my cabinet, normal weight, no novelty glass. I’m not subsidizing a bowling pin.
Basic sourcing ethos. A sentence about agave supply and who’s actually distilling goes a long way.
Founder involvement? Only if it’s real. If the founder is picking cuts with the maestro, funding long-term agave contracts, and staying out of the blender’s way, cool. If it’s selfies at the still and a script about “craft,” that’s noise. I care about the distillery team and the liquid, not who flexes on the label.
When you hear that Teremana Tequila is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's brand, what's your honest first reaction? Does celebrity ownership increase or decrease your trust in the product quality?
Derrius Spiker, 30, Construction Manager, Rural, CT, USA:
Honest first hit? Eye roll. Celebrity tequila smells like marketing and soft margins. Default trust goes down until it earns it. With The Rock, I expect clean branding, safe flavor, huge distribution, middle-of-the-road profile. Fine for cocktails, not a standout neat. If the price sits above solid mid-shelf and it drinks below it, hard pass. I'm not paying a $10 bottle premium for a $0.50 autograph - that's a change order for branding. What moves me: side-by-side against my usual mid-shelf, same glass, same pour. If it wins on taste and price, it’s in the rotation. If it ties, I buy the cheaper one. Simple as that.
Kaysee Prox, 38, Retiree (Independent), Rural, FL, USA:
Bottom line up front: celebrity label decreases my trust out of the gate. I roll my eyes first, taste second. My honest first reaction to hearing it's The Rock's tequila: here we go, another glossy bottle riding a famous name. I like the guy's work ethic, sure, but marketing is marketing. Most celeb booze drinks like a $20 bottle with a $15 Instagram tax. How I sort it out in the real world: - I sip it neat before it ever touches a mixer. If it tastes like vanilla perfume or cotton candy, hard pass. - Price-per-pour check. If it drinks below its price bracket, not worth the shelf space. - Next-day feel. If one or two pours gives me a headache, I'm not buying a second bottle. - I ask two friends who actually drink tequila, not fans of the celebrity. Could it be decent? Maybe. But I don’t grant benefit of the doubt just because a famous guy slapped his name on it. For margarita nights, I usually grab a plain mid-shelf bottle that’s consistent and leave the celebrity stuff for somebody else’s bar cart. What are you using it for - sipping or mixers? And what price range are you aiming at?
Dawn Lorang, 39, Office Manager, Bloomington city, MN, USA:
Honestly? My first reaction is an eye roll. Feels like every celeb has a bottle now, and half of them taste like marketing. That said, I do give The Rock a tiny pass because he reads as a hard worker, not a vanity project guy. But at the end of the day, I care about how it tastes in a simple margarita after the kids are down and what it does to my budget, not who’s on the label.
Trust level with celebrity brands: Slight decrease by default. I assume hype until proven otherwise.
Exception for him: Small bump because he seems hands-on, but still not enough to make me buy without a real rec or a good sale tag at the Bloomington shop by Southtown.
Big picture: I’d rather my money go to smaller makers than another famous person’s empire, but I’m not precious. If it’s good, priced fair, and doesn’t taste like sugar and regret, I’ll drink it.
Sabreena Boring, 26, Sales Manager, Rural, VA, USA:
Gut reaction? Eye roll. Celebrity label on booze reads like a marketing tax to me, so my trust drops right out of the gate. If the bottle’s sitting over mid-shelf pricing and riding his name, I assume I’m paying for billboards, not better juice. If it wins in a blind pour against what I already buy in the $30-40 lane, fine, I’ll say so, but it has to prove it. What I look at before I even consider it:
Price per 750 vs my regular - if it’s much higher, hard pass.
Blind taste at a bar if I can get a single pour cheap - no influencer fluff, just how it drinks.
Hype vs availability - if it’s all Instagram and no shelf consistency, I’m out.
So yeah, celebrity ownership usually decreases my confidence. Show me it beats my usual on taste and value, or it stays on the shelf.
