Coca-Cola's Challenge to Reduce Sugar Consumption

Running head: Coca-cola & sugar 1
Coca-cola & sugar 15Coca-Cola & Sugar
MAN3503 - Craig
St. Petersburg College
Coca-Cola & Sugar
A very complex problem Coca-Cola is facing is the dynamic
of sugar use throughout the American diet. Sweetened drinks
are a major source of calories that result in obesity. Coca-Cola
has tried several methods over the years to eliminate the use of
sugar in a verity of brands such as Diet Coke and Coke Zero.
Unfortunately the artificial sweeteners in these products have
fallen under a similar scrutiny. “Today, daily servings
of CocaCola beverages are estimated at 1.9 billion globally”
(Coca-Cola 2013). Coke has come a long way especially since
the first serving of the product only set the consumers back five
cents in 1888. With Coca-Cola sales falling they must figure out
a way to replace popular brands with a more health conscience
substitute or remove the negativity toward the brand altogether.
“Coca-Cola spends more money on advertising than Microsoft
and Apple combined” Bhasin, K. (2011). Coke has already
designated a lot of money toward brand imaging without much
success in altering the public’s perception of their sugar-
sweetened beverages.
Coca-Cola has faced many complex issues throughout the
years from bottle issues in 1916 to pesticide contamination in
India from 2003 to 2004. One of the more substantial and most
relevant issues they have faced was the additive Cocaine used in
early versions of Coca-Cola Classic. Cocaine is a byproduct of
the Coca leaf and was a very popular additive at the time. Coca-
Cola Originally “called for five ounces of Coca leaf per gallon
of syrup, a significant dose; in 1891, Candler claimed his
formula (altered extensively from Pemberton's original)
contained only a tenth of this amount. Coca-Cola once

contained an estimated nine milligrams of Cocaine per
glass” (Liebowitz, M. R. 1983). The stimulating Coca extract
was removed in 1903 because of legal health laws. The Coca
leaf is still used today although it has been detoxified removing
any of its stimulating characteristics. In 1903 Coke didn’t have
the option of removing its ingredient so the choice was easy.
Sugar isn’t a legal issue as much as a moral one that holds the
future of the company in its balance.
Unfortunately for Coca-Cola sugar can’t be as easily
detoxified like the Coca plant. They have to come up with a
perfect alternative that won’t be classified into a separate
category such as Diet Coke. There are many sugar substitutes,
but as any Coke drinker knows sugar has a very distinctive taste
that can’t be replicated by a healthier version. No matter how
hard Coke has tried, the alternatives just haven’t matched up to
its predecessor. Diet Coke and Coke Zero have gained some
traction throughout the Coke community but in recent years the
sugar substitutes are under scrutiny for their possible role in
diseases such as cancer. Diet Coke uses aspartame and
acesulfame K that have been investigated by the FDA and
permitted safe for human consumption. There are still many
skeptics out there like the Center for Science in the Public
Interest who claim these chemicals are unsafe and to stay away.
Why is sugar such a big deal to Coca-Cola? Sugar is the
catalyst for the drinks success and is undeniably loved by all
who consume it. Coke wouldn’t be Coca-Cola without it. Right
now “Americans drink an average of 399 servings of Coke
products per year. 50% of these are Coke brands, and 63% of
those are Coca-Cola Classic” (Bhasin, K. 2011). Since each
Coca-Cola Classic contains 39 grams of sugar per serving the
average American Coke drinker consumes 10.8 pounds of sugar
per year. Sugar is a plant-based derivative that has been mass-
produced since the 18th century. The majority producer of the
product today is Brazil. Sugar is a short chain, soluble

carbohydrate composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. It has
been found to raise blood sugar glucose levels, which results in
obesity and diabetes in the human body. It has also been linked
to Alzheimer’s, cardiovascular disease and tooth decay. Some
scientists even claim it has addictive properties. Herein lies the
problem, with so many people becoming health conscious how
can Coca-Cola’s number one selling beverage break away from
the stigma of being unhealthy.
Coca-Cola’s sales are dropping rapidly in the sweetened
beverage department because of the so-called war on sugar.
Coke is at a standstill until it can find some sort of resolution.
How does Coca-Cola define these problems? 1. Sugar has been
linked to obesity, diabetes and other major health concerns. 2.
Health conscious Americans are trying to cut sugar from their
diet completely. 3. Each Coca-Cola Classic has 39 grams of
sugar in every bottle. 4. Americans are associating Coca-Cola
Classic with obesity. 5. Sales of Coca-Cola Classic are
dwindling because of this. 6. There aren’t any perfect
alternatives to replace sugar with. As of right now Coca-Cola is
feeling the pinch but realizes that if an alternative isn’t found in
the next few years the company will suffer greater losses than it
is seeing today.
Health Concerns remain a major problem to organizations that
produce and sell food products. Such companies must ensure
that their products are not only safe for consumption, but are
also free from disease causing elements (Chen, 2009). This is
concern of Coca Cola, which produces soft drinks and other
carbonated beverage products. Under the current situation, the
company finds itself in a very serious dilemma on how to
eliminate the use of sweetened drinks from its product lines in
American culture where sugar forms part of the diet.
The company has come to the realization that sweetened
products have higher concentrations of calories that are
responsible for obesity in the society. It must, therefore, show

its concern towards the problem and stand with the society to
prevent it. Its objective in this fight is to reduce the level of
sugar content in the products.
Problem at hand: How Coca Cola can reduce the dynamic of
sugar consumption in its products.
Objectives
Coca Cola must identify the best approaches of how to
attain the above objective. The first approach will entail
focusing on the production of low calorie beverages. High
calorie content is the main factor associated with increasing
prevalence of obesity among the consumers. In this respect, the
company would achieve this objective by identifying alternative
products that are safe for the consumers. It will be important for
the company to substitute sweetened drinks with non-sweetened
ones (Wenner, 2008).
However, this would not lead to the elimination of the
problem because the company sales its drinks in a culture where
sugar consumption in the diet is very common. The consumers
may not adopt the new products due to the problem of taste
preferences. It may be difficult for the company to sale the non-
sweetened drinks among these consumers and realize the
targeted sales revenues. The situation presents a major setback
to the realization of the objective. Coca Cola will have to
increase the adoption rate for non-sweetened products through
health awareness campaigns. For example, giving information to
the consumers on how sugar consumption causes diabetes can
change their mindsets (Smithers, 2014).
The organization should focus on anti-obesity campaigns
to transform the sugar consumption habits of its consumers. It is
vital that such campaigns be targeted at the buyers so as to
change their behavior. Coca Cola should come up with a clear
message that informs the consumers on the dangers of
sweetened-drinks. For example, commercial adverts for the non-
sweetened products should be accompanied with the health
awareness message. The campaign strategy should also embrace
the product features by creating the differences between the two

sets of the drinks. For example, Coca Cola can shift from red
branding to green branding of all the products so that consumers
can associate the green color with low sugar content. This
approach will ensure that the company creates awareness for the
new products and also informs its consumers about the major
health concerns associated with the consumption of the sugary
ones (Engber, 2014).
Effective promotional strategies for the new products
should help the company to reduce the problem of declined
sales and enhance the level of profitability. Despite the fact the
non-sweetened products will be healthier for the consumers; the
company anticipates a decline in the level of sales revenues and
profits. Coca Cola knows very well that the adoption and usage
rates may be lower for the new products as consumers may not
find them tasty as the sugared ones. In this respect, product
promotion strategies coupled with health awareness campaigns
will help the organization to increase the level of sales
(Wenner, 2008).
The realization of safety products will also emanate from
the company’s initiative to shift from the use of artificial
sweeteners to natural non-processed sweeteners that are healthy
for the buyers. Artificial sweeteners contain higher amounts of
calories than the natural ones. For example, artificial sugar
contains three times the amount of calories found in a stevia
plant. The company can, therefore, solve the problem of taste
preferences among the consumers by using the natural
sweeteners, which are safe for human consumption (Vāvere,
2014).
Coca Cola will be compelled to comply with the industry
and government requirements on health matters. Both the
government and the industry players have the responsibility to
ensure that the products sold to the consumers are free from
disease causing chemicals. For instance, industry regulations
require the firms in the beverage industry to observe the
required sugar levels when producing their products. On other
hand, the government inhibits the firms from using chemicals

that are carcinogenic (Engber, 2014). In conclusion, the
organization should strive to be ethical in its business practices
and adheres to the health requirements in the sector. Coca Cola
will realize the objective by adopting safe products and
promoting them to increase their sales. The company will have
to comply with the health standards and regulations in different
states so as to manufacture healthy products that meet the
various legal requirements in the states.
It’s time for Coca-Cola to roll with the times. Being a cannon
in the soda industry during the early 2000’s will mean
competing with green Industry leaders and the awareness of
obesity campaigns from 2010 and beyond. Having a sugary
product as the face of their company is going to have to change.
Creating alternatives to their standard way of business could be
successful by paying attention to trends and making deliberate
decisions toward the future. Reducing the levels of sugar
products, focusing on health campaigns that involve their new
products, and raising the bar on health standards could be three
ways to increase profits and change the way the world sees
Coke.
Foremost, Coca Cola will need to reduce the level of sugar in
products and focus on low calorie beverages by substituting
sweetened drinks with non-sweetened ones or creating a product
that has a natural sweetener. They could do this by using fruits
and even nuts for sweeting their drinks. Cherry coke could
actually have the sweetness of cherries! Coconut nectar is an
excellent alternative. Almonds have their own savory
sweetness. Using their scientists and patenting a new product
that adds sweetness without the calories or the harsh destructors
of chemicals could be a great answer. Maybe the face of Coke
could change from being a soft drink to a fruit drink instead?
Keeping the label and the logo is important for branding but,
the general public might react favorably to a green label on a
fruit drink or on flavored water.

A great means to this end may be to focus on health campaigns
that show their products as the contributors to the healthy
lifestyles that Americans have been focusing on since the
obesity awareness kick. This could raise profits worldwide as
well. It would be smart to become a green industry leader using
their marketing campaigns that highlight the focus of Coca Cola
and its affiliates to comply with the health standards and
regulations in different states. Then manufacture healthy
products that meet the various legal requirements in the states.
Increase the adoption rate for non-sweetened products through
health awareness campaigns. For example, giving information to
the consumers on how sugar consumption causes diabetes can
change their mindsets about how the products they consume can
affect their well-being. A campaign that would also focusing on
the rising obesity issues due to high calorie and high sugar
foods in vending machines in our schools is a great way to get
attention from the middle class. Market Coca-Cola as the
company that has always given the world what they want; and
now they all want to be healthy. New information has come to
light in recent years and people are becoming aware of
damaging effects from unhealthy foods on their bodies. People
are angry about GMO’s and companies such as Monsanto
feeding us damaging products. A focus on obesity and wellness
campaigns could well keep profits soaring.
Another alternative is to be an industry leader that concentrates
on raising the bar on health standards. Initiating legislation that
is backed by Coca-Cola and its stakeholders that clearly push
for healthier legal standards on foods could be a great way to
take part of the spotlight from the health product industry. The
image for all Coca Cola stakeholders could be people who want
to make a difference in the standards for health consciousness
worldwide. Coke might jump on the campaign for healthier
foods in public schools and college campuses start an outreach
campaign that feeds the unfortunate through healthier
alternatives – hot school lunches with a healthy drink, vending

machines that offer almond milk etc. Becoming activists
toward making laws that increase health code restriction
standards might well be a way to be seen by the public eye as
the company who has always cared.
Coca cola needs to ride the surf on what people want.
Highlighting themselves as a sustainable company that provides
information to the community about health products and raises
awareness about how we can all take better care of our bodies is
a great way to focus on the trending profit margins that are up
and coming. Being an activist for the betterment of quality
healthier lifestyles is a proven way to keep profits high and
energy toward a company on an upswing as well. It might do
well for them to advertise that they are adverse to GMO’s and
anything or any company that is providing unhealthy choices.
It’s time for coke to step up as an industry leader that really
cares about the health and well-being of the bodies with which
their products are consumed. People are feeling like they are
being overrun by large companies like Monsanto. To the health
advocates, Coca-Cola could be the hero that stops the big bad
monster that’s killing us all. What a great way for them to
market a product that is healthy and well received; which of
course, means higher profit margins! Coca cola should raise the
bar. Be the health conscious company that everyone wants to
emulate.
Evaluation of Alternatives:
A. Coca Cola will reduce the amount of sugar in its drinks and
create a drink with a natural sweetener.
There are sever sources of natural and artificial sweeteners out
there; however, as mentioned earlier, artificial sweeteners seem
to have other issues by way of the Food and Drug
administration regarding there long term effects. After analysis
of different sources, it seems that natural Agave nectar may be
the best alternative because it would “Agave nectar is a real
sugar, as opposed to an artificial or non-nutritive sweetener. It
has properties similar to many sugars with one important

exception: its glycemic index is significantly lower. This makes
it a healthier alternative to many processed AND natural
sweeteners, including: white granulated sugar, brown sugar,
turbinado sugar, maple sugar crystals, dehydrated cane juice,
date sugar. (All About Agave, 2015)”
There is a lot of speculation about the fact that agave nectar is a
type of sugar and therefore not actually a health food, it would
not be considered a health food in our analysis either. Though
agave nectar is more calorie-dense than brown or white sugar, it
is about 40% sweeter, so the amount of agave can be
reduced. Essentially, Coca Cola would not have to add in as
much of the sweetener to still grab the desired effect. So, in
theory, if a can of Coca Cola Classic has a total of 10.6 grams
of sugar, then we would only be required to put about 4.24
grams of agave nectar to achieve the same amount of sweetness.
So, the average American would therefore reduce it’s drinking
of sugar consumption from about 10.8 pounds per year to only
4.32 pounds in a given year. The health hazards of drinking
sugar sweetened beverages like sodas and sugary fruit drinks is
no secret.
B. As a company, raise the bar on health standards. Raise
campaign ads for healthier lifestyles and push our more
sustainable brand and company.
Americans are becoming more aware of the health scares caused
by high calorie and high sugar foods. Coca Cola could truly
market itself as a brand that care about a healthy lifestyle and
the types of ingredients that are in our products. Instead of
giving the option of drinking Diet Coke or Coke Zero, we’ll
offer something that is slightly less damaging than our original
coke without taking much away from taste. Coke drinkers
typically do not like the taste of Diet Coke and vice versa. But
considering an all-natural coke, with sustainable products and
ingredients could show us as a company that cares about our
consumers and that we’re not solely concerned about profit but
also the betterment of our consumers.
Consequences:

Our drinks would have a lower glycemic index and would be
able to be marketed as a more health conscious alternative
without sacrificing too much of the taste. With the all-natural
sweetener, this is a better alternative to say people attempting
to manage their weights because Agave nectar's low “glycemic
index makes it suitable for some individuals on low-carb or
slow-carb diets (the Atkins Diet, the South Beach Diet) and for
a variety of weight loss/management programs. Granulated
sugar has an average glycemic index in the high 60's, while
agave generally scores under 30. (Agave, 2015)” Less of the
sugar would be used so it could also be a good alternative for
diabetic users. Because agave has a lower glycemic index than
refined sugars, its carbohydrates are less likely to raise the
blood sugar quickly. Again - agave is not a "free" food but,
under proper medical monitoring, using it as a substitute for
sugar may broaden dietary options for many diabetics.
Ultimately, there would be decrease the amount of cases of
people either gaining weight or becoming diabetic solely from
their consumption of our products. Since many Americans feel
the need to drink carbonated beverages, offering this alternative
allows them to ultimately cut down on sugar consumption, carbs
with a less threatening, all natural sugar substitute.
Our nation is becoming increasingly more interested in their
health and lifestyles. They can about GMOs, about sugar and
caloric intake. We have apps and wrist bands and all types of
things that help us monitor our weight. Branding ourselves to
these more health conscious consumers and doing different ad
campaigns in schools will give us the ability to change the
stigma that has been placed upon us by the growing obesity in
the country. It will let the younger generations, school age
children, to know that Coca Cola is a company that cares and it
may not be a carrot and kale smoothie, but it cannot be denied
that it is a better alternative to what used to be.
Risks:
Although the agave nectar could be a better alternative to sugar,
it may not necessarily ring true to the millions of coca cola

classic drinkers because “old habits die hard”. The reason that
Coca Cola Classic has the name that it does is because at some
point in their history, Coca Cola changed the recipe of the cola
and it caused an uproar from the consumers that had drank
original Coke their whole lives.” marking the first formula
change in 99 years. (Coca-Cola Company, 2012)” “New Coke”
that was created in 1985 and was widely disliked and customers
literally complained until the classic recipe was replaced.
Our customers like what they like and may turn their nose away
to any changes, even if it was a better choice. As far as taste,
agave does have a very similar taste to regular sugar and it
shouldn’t be much of a change in taste but many tests would
have to be run to make sure that we get the correct ratio of
agave to soda to ensure the most authentic taste.
References
Coca-Cola. (2013). Coca-Cola History. Retrieved from,
www.worldofcoca-cola.com

Devraj, R. (August 5, 2003) Indian Coke, Pepsi Laced with
Pesticides, Says NGO. Indian Resource Center. Inter Press
Service, Retrieved from www.indiaresource.org
Liebowitz, M. R. (1983). The Chemistry of Love. Boston:
Little, Brown, & Co.
Bhasin, K. (2011). 15 Facts About Coca-Cola That Will Blow
Your Mind. Business insider. Retrieved from
www.businessinsider.com
Chen, N. N. (2009). Food, medicine, and the quest for good
health: nutrition, medicine, and culture. Columbia University
Press.
Engber, D. (2014, January 1). The quest for a natural sugar
substitute. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/magazine/the-quest-for-a-
natural- sugar-substitute.html?
Smithers, R. (2014, June 11). Coca-Cola life: Coke with fewer
calories and less sugar to tackle obesity. The Guardian.
Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/11/coca-cola-
fewer-calories-less-sugar
Vāvere, J. (2014). Coca-Cola Life–How new strategies help the
company to maintain dominance in world markets. Retrieved
from
http://www.adaptivecycle.nl/images/Minicase_JVavere.pdf
Wenner, M. (2008). Magnifying taste. Scientific
American, 299(2), 96-99.
Agave. (2015, Feb 25). Agave Vs. Artificial Sweeteners.
Retrieved from All About Agave:

http://www.allaboutagave.com/agave-vs-artificial.php
All About Agave. (2015, Feb 25). Agave Nectar vs. Granular
Sugars. Retrieved from All About Agave:
http://www.allaboutagave.com/agave-vs-granular.php
Coca-Cola Company. (2012, Nov 14). The Real Story of New
Coke. Retrieved from Coca Cola Journey: http://www.coca-
colacompany.com/history/the-real-story-of-new-coke
Instructions:
Please read the paper (do not change anything) and include an
Introduction and Conclusion. Must be 300 to 400 words.
Argument by Analogy Final
This assignment is like an analogy.
1.
Open a book at random; Google anything. Resemblance, in the
form of precedent, analogy, or comparison, is ubiquitous.
Showing contrast demonstrates the limits of the resemblance.
As a matter of fact, it is important to show the limitations of the
similarity to make a useful comparison.
Find an example of how similarity (resemblance) is argued in
one of the research articles you have used or a textbook you are
reading.
2.
Teachers use analogies to get across new ideas. Textbooks
abound in them. If fact, cognitive scientists put analogical
thinking among the higher orders, so teaching it is just as
important in teacher development as in the classroom.
One method teachers are taught is called TWA (Teaching With

Analogies). Teachers are taught to point out similarities
between the target and analogue, (the thing you are trying to
explain and the comparison you are using) and show the
limitations of the analogy before drawing conclusions.
For example, one idea that is difficult to explain is how a writer
must always identify the rhetorical situation before beginning a
writing project. This is the target concept. One analogy I use is
to compare this to getting dressed and groomed before leaving
the house: the analogue. As for similarities, I argue that you
don’t decide what to wear until you know who your audience is.
You decision is different for school or church or a party or a
court appearance. You are sizing up the rhetorical situation.
Likewise, when composing an argument, you make choices
about the words you choose, the tone you take, and the way you
arrange your argument. Actually, there are a lot of similarities.
This limitation of this analogy is that you can experience your
everyday audience and see how they react (or don’t) in a way
you rarely can when you write.
Find an example of one your teachers or textbook authors using
analogy to get across an unfamiliar idea.
3.
Doctors and nurses ask patients to explain their symptoms by
saying what they are like. Judges use analogies to explain
decisions. In fact, every field employs analogical reasoning in
some ways.
Research Challenge: Find out how analogies are used in your
field. The answers may be surprising.

4.
Demonstrating how bad someone’s pet analogies are won’t
make friends at parties, but is useful in winning arguments. In
order to do this, you have to show that the dissimilarities are
stronger than the similarities. This is often done by showing the
absurdity of the comparison.
"… science has been looking at gravity the wrong way and that
there is something more basic, from which gravity ‘emerges,’
the way stock markets emerge from the collective behavior of
individual investors …", writes Dennis Overbye in “A Scientist
looks at Gravity”, attempting to popularize the work of
physicist Erik Verlinde. Yeah, but stock markets crash and get
manipulated by greed.
whereas collectors provide an invaluable clerical service to the
community.
Mining is a flawed analogy for collecting bitcoins, claims one
blogger, because mining is back breaking work
Find an example of a bad analogy that is current. Show how the
dissimilarities outweigh the similarities.
1.
Open a book at random
;
Google anything. Resemblance, in the
form

of precedent,
analogy,
or
comparison
,
is ubiquitous
.
Showing contrast demonstrates the limits of the resembl
a
nce
.
As a matter o
f fact,
it is important to
show the limitations of the similarity
to make a useful comparison
.
2.
abound in them. If fact
,
cognitive scientists

put analogical thinking among the higher orders, so teaching it
is just as important in teacher
development as in the classroom.
One method teachers are taught is called TWA (
T
eaching
W
ith
A
nalogies
). Teachers are taught to
point
out
similarities between the target and analogue
,
(the
thing you are trying to explain and the
comparison you are using)
and show t
he
limitations of the analogy
before drawing conclusions.
For example
, one idea that is difficult to explain is how a writer must
always identify the rhetorical
situation before
beginning
a writing project.

This is the target concept. One analogy I use is to compare
this to getting dressed and groomed before leaving the house:
the analogue.
As for similarities, I argue
that you don
’
t decide what to wear until you know who your audie
nce is. You decision is
different for
school or church or
a party or
a court appearance. You are sizing up the
rhetorical situation.
L
i
kewise,
when composing an argument
,
you make choices about
the
words you choose, the tone you take, and
the way you
arrange
your
argument
.
Actually, there are a lot of similarities.
This limitation of this analogy is that you can experi

ence your everyday audience and see how they react
(or don
’
t)
in a way
you rarely can when you
write.
Find an example
of
one
your teachers
or textbook authors
using
analogy to get across an unfamiliar
idea.
one of the research articles you
have used or a textbook you are reading.
1.
Open a book at random; Google anything. Resemblance, in the
form of precedent, analogy, or

comparison, is ubiquitous.
Showing contrast demonstrates the limits of the resemblance.
As a matter of fact, it is important to
show the limitations of the similarity to make a useful
comparison.
2.
abound in them. If fact, cognitive scientists
put analogical thinking among the higher orders, so teaching it
is just as important in teacher
development as in the classroom.
One method teachers are taught is called TWA (Teaching With
Analogies). Teachers are taught to point
out similarities between the target and analogue, (the thing you
are trying to explain and the
comparison you are using) and show the limitations of the
analogy before drawing conclusions.
For example, one idea that is difficult to explain is how a writer
must always identify the rhetorical
situation before beginning a writing project. This is the target
concept. One analogy I use is to compare
this to getting dressed and groomed before leaving the house:
the analogue. As for similarities, I argue
that you don’t decide what to wear until you know who your
audience is. You decision is different for
school or church or a party or a court appearance. You are
sizing up the rhetorical situation. Likewise,
when composing an argument, you make choices about the
words you choose, the tone you take, and
the way you arrange your argument. Actually, there are a lot of
similarities.
This limitation of this analogy is that you can experience your
everyday audience and see how they react

(or don’t) in a way you rarely can when you write.
Find an example of one your teachers or textbook authors using
analogy to get across an unfamiliar idea.
one of the research articles you
have used or a textbook you are reading.
1. Introduction
Section:
The growth of new digital media in the first decade of the
twenty‐first century has seen a transformation of marketing
communication, with 94 per cent of marketing executives
responding to a 2010 survey indicating that they expect to spend
more on social media over the following three years (Busbyet
al., 2010). One of the newest forms of social media is
micro‐blogging, most commonly associated with Twitter. Since
its launch in 2006, Twitter has accumulated more than 175
million users (Twitter.com, 2011), with recent growth described
as ‘explosive’ (Lefkow, 2010). Twitter and other social media
platforms create additional marketing communications channels,
but can also add to an organisation's costs: for example
PepsiCo's Gatorade brand has five full‐time employees working
in what the organisation calls “Mission Control”, monitoring
Twitter conversations, blogs, and online and social media
performance (Busbyet al., 2010; Ostrow, 2010). However the
effectiveness or efficiency of the strategy is unclear, with
Gatorade's major competitor, Coca‐Cola's Powerade,
experiencing much larger growth in sales, despite a much lower
social media presence (Bauerlein, 2010).
One of the challenges for organisations attempting to develop
an effective and efficient Twitter strategy is the lack of
theoretical or empirical evidence on use of Twitter. While there

has been substantial research into why individuals use Twitter
(e.g. Honeycutt and Herring, 2009; Javaet al., 2007), there are
only a few studies on the use of Twitter by organisations, and,
at the time of writing, most of these were published in
conference proceedings, and no studies of organisational
Twitter use were found in a search of marketing journals. Thus,
despite its potential, importance for external communications,
there is very little research evidence to guide managers in
developing a cost‐effective strategy for organisational use of
Twitter.
Previous research into the use of Twitter by organisations has
included studies of Twitter use for internal communication
(Ehrlich and Shami, 2010; Riemer and Richter, 2010; Zhao and
Rosson, 2009), and for research, with Twitter described as an
online listening tool (Crawford, 2009) and as a means of crowd
sourcing (Ehrlich and Shami, 2010). Twitter's greatest potential
for organisations is, arguably, for external communication with
customers, but very few peer‐reviewed studies have analysed
this usage: in this context, Twitter has been described as a tool
to create electronic word of mouth (Jansenet al., 2009b), as a
viral marketing mechanism (Asur and Huberman, 2010) and as a
form of online word of mouth branding (Jansenet al., 2009a).
Twitter is, however, different from other marketing
communications media, which can be classified inter alia, as
one‐to‐one (e.g. e‐mail), one‐to‐many (e.g. mass media) and
many‐to‐many (e.g. the web and online groups) (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996). In contrast, tweets by an organisation will
typically be one‐to‐many (since the default is for all tweets to
be public) but will often function as a one‐to‐one mechanism
(when a tweet is a reply to an individual) with a potentially
large audience for that tweet, since the reply will usually be
visible to others. Tweets can be only one‐to‐one, since a private
message can be sent to a follower (that is, to someone who has
elected to receive tweets from the account). However this
option is not available to reply to someone who is not following
the organisation, so an organisation cannot reply privately to a

tweet by someone who is not a follower. Thus, Twitter is
perhaps unique among interactive marketing communications in
that a reply to an individual (a one‐to‐one communication) is
visible to a much larger audience, which, as will be discussed
later, can result in problems with the use of Twitter as a
response medium. In the next section, we review earlier
research on interactive communications, and develop a
theoretical framework for the analysis of organisational use of
Twitter.
1.1 Twitter as an interactive communications medium
In a review of the changing role of corporate
communication, Duncan and Moriarty (1998, p. 8) concluded
that interactivity between the organisation and customer is a
“hallmark of the paradigm shift in both marketing and
communication”, and argued that an increase in interactivity
makes communication “an even more valuable element of
marketing”. With its potential for personalised communication
with individuals who have chosen to follow an organisation's
Twitter feed, Twitter clearly increases the scope for interactive
communication by organisations with their customers. It is
unsurprising, therefore, that more organisations are developing
Twitter accounts as an additional way of communicating with
customers: for example 60 per cent of Fortune 500 organisations
had a Twitter account by late 2010 (up from 35 per cent the
previous year), compared to only 56 per cent with a Facebook
account at the same time (Barnes, 2010).
Despite growing interest in interactive communications, there is
no clear agreement on the definition of interactivity (Koolstra
and Bos, 2009), with a recent book stating that “an exact
definition of interactivity is still being debated” (Pavlik and
McIntosh, 2011, p. 69). Two contrasting interpretations of
interactivity have been identified in the literature (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996; Siciliaet al., 2005; Song and Zinkhan, 2008); the
first, reflecting communications research, has been termed the
“interpersonal view” (Macias, 2003), and sees interactivity as
involving communication between individuals and/or

organisations, with a continuum of interactivity ranging from
non‐interactive, one way communications (such as radio and
television), reactive communications, when messages respond to
or refer to earlier ones, and fully interactive communications,
when communications incorporate preceding messages, in a
process which has been described as a “related or threaded
manner” (e.g. Rafaeli, 1988; Rafaeli and Sudweeks,
1997; Sundaret al., 2003).
The second view of interactivity suggests that it is based on the
structure of the medium, and is typically ascribed to Steuer
(1992), who defined interactivity as “the extent to which users
can participate in modifying the messages they receive” (p. 84).
This view has been summarised by Hoffman and Novak
(1996) as “machine interactivity”. Under this view of
interactivity, web sites have been classified as providing
different levels of interactivity, depending on the presence of
features such as links, chat facilities and access to extra
features such as video and audio (Coyle and Thorson, 2001; Ha
and James, 1998; Macias, 2003; Siciliaet al., 2005). Research
into web sites has suggested that increased interactivity is
associated with higher comprehension (Macias, 2003), more
information processing, higher favourability and greater flow
state (Siciliaet al., 2005) and a more positive user response to
the subject of the web site (Sundaret al., 2003). Increased
interactivity in an online advertisement has also been associated
with increased involvement with the advertisement (Fortin and
Dholakia, 2005).
Twitter can provide both types of interactivity: it allows both
“interpersonal interactivity” (through exchange of messages
between an organisation and individual, and by referencing
others' messages) and also “machine interactivity”, for example
through the use of embedded hyperlinks, which allow a tweet
receiver to access extra information by clicking on links
embedded within tweets.
Organisational tweets can therefore be classified, as we describe
in the following section, as reflecting different types of

interactivity. The research into interactivity in web sites
discussed previously would suggest that tweets demonstrating
higher levels of interactivity might lead to more positive
recipient response. However organisations may have different
strategic aims in their use of Twitter; variations in the use of
Twitter might also arise from variations in organisational type
(for example a service organisation might use Twitter
differently from an organisation selling physical goods). There
may also be differences in the use of Twitter in geographic
markets with varying levels of Twitter usage. Duncan and
Moriarty (1998) have argued that strategic consistency is
critical for marketing communications, and that executional
consistency is a basic premise of relationship marketing; that is,
messages should be consistent and appropriate for their target
audiences. While different organisations may therefore use
different forms of communications, and may use varying forms
at different times, the principle of strategic consistency would
suggest that in the absence of market specific differences in
strategy, organisations will use similar content mixes in their
communications in different geographic markets. However,
there has been very limited academic work examining
organisational use of Twitter, and no comparative studies across
different geographic markets. Use of Twitter is greatest in the
USA, with 62.1 per cent of all Twitter users, with Australia the
fifth largest user, with 2.2 per cent of users (Chenget al., 2009).
As a result, in addition to classifying tweets according to their
level of interactivity, we classify and contrast the message
content of tweets from comparable organisations in different
geographic markets, and consider the implications for strategic
use of Twitter as a marketing communications channel.
2. Methodology
Section:
Since the research aimed to examine and compare Twitter usage
across two geographic markets, a variety of organisations were
considered for analysis. To be eligible for study, an
organisation was required to be:

· •
publicly owned;
· •
have a corporate Twitter account based in both the US and in
Australia; and
· •
to have a minimum level of use of the account, equating to a
minimum of one tweet per day (that is a minimum of 182 tweets
from each account over the data collection period from
December 2009 to May 2010).
Since the Twitter strategy of an organisation is likely to vary
with the customer's involvement with the product (and thus with
customers' potential interest in related tweets), six companies
which fulfilled these conditions were chosen for analysis: three
consumer goods companies (Dominos Pizza, Billabong – a surf
and leisure clothing company – and Cosmopolitan magazine –
also known as Cosmo, a monthly magazine targeted at females)
and three primarily service organisations (Microsoft, Qantas
and Virgin Mobile). The companies reflect different
involvement categories, ranging from low involvement products
(Dominos Pizza) to Billabong (assumed to be medium or higher
involvement for its target segment) and service companies
assumed to be moderate (or higher) involvement.
The brands also represent different corporate structures;
Cosmopolitan Australia and Microsoft Australia are subsidiaries
of US parent companies; Billabong US and Qantas US both
support the US operations of Australian companies; Dominos
Australia is the master franchise holder for the US public
company, and Virgin Mobile is operated by separate
telecommunications companies in different markets (i.e. Sprint
in the US, and Optus Singtel in Australia). The companies
chosen thus allow cross‐country comparisons of organisations
selling the same product, including those operated by the same
company (Billabong, Cosmopolitan, Microsoft and Qantas) and
those operated by different owners (Dominos and Virgin
Mobile).

Since there can be multiple accounts tweeting on behalf of one
organisation, we chose for analysis the Twitter account which
appeared to be the most visible and/or central for each
organisation, in order to best reflect any organisational policy
or practice on the use of Twitter. For each company, this
identified one US and one Australian account: “dominos”,
“billabongusa”, “CosmoOnline”, “qantasusa”, “Microsoft” and
“virginmobileus” for the US accounts, and “pizza_dominos”,
“billabong1973”, “CosmopolitanAU”, qftravelinsider”, “MSAU
“and “virginmobileaus” for the Australian accounts. All tweets
from these accounts were downloaded for the period from 6
December 2009 to 27 May 20101. A random selection of 200
tweets from ten of the corporate accounts was selected for
coding and analysis. Two accounts (Billabong US and Qantas
US) sent only 194 and 196 tweets respectively during the data
collection period, so all of their tweets were used for analysis.
Tweets were coded to reflect the contrasting interpretations of
interactivity discussed in the literature review section, thus
reflecting both interpersonal and machine interactivity. First,
tweets were classified relative to their interpersonal
interactivity, based on levels of interactivity developed
by Sundaret al.(2003), and Rafaeli and Sudweeks (1997).
Tweets were classified as high‐interactive, if they contained a
hashtag (#) – a Twitter convention allowing users to create
and/or follow a thread of discussion by prefixing a tweet with a
“#” character (Kwaket al., 2010); as medium interactive when
the tweet contained retweets (forwarded tweets) or “mentions”
(thus referring to another user, but not replying to a particular
message), and as reactive/low interactive if the tweet consisted
of a reply to another tweet. Tweets, which reflected more than
one level of interactivity, were coded for the highest level; that
is, a tweet which contained a reply, but which also contained a
hashtag, was coded as fully interactive.
To reflect the concept of machine interactivity (Hoffman and
Novak, 1996), tweets were separately coded for whether they
included hyperlinks, thus allowing recipients to choose to

access additional material. From an organisation's point of
view, a link to an organisational web site (here termed an
“internal” link) serves a very different purpose from a link to an
external web site; the first continues organisational
communication with the recipient, whereas an external link
takes an individual to an external site, which may lead them to
material which negates or compromises the organisation's
message (Trammellet al., 2006). As a result, tweets were coded
separately for internal and external links.
Coding was separately performed by two coders, and agreement
reviewed. There was very high agreement (over 95 per cent) and
inconsistencies were resolved by identifying errors in coding,
resulting in 100 per cent agreement. Comparisons between the
percentages of tweets of different types were made using
Mood's median test (a non‐parametric test which is appropriate
for comparing distributions which are not normally distributed
and which contain outliers, such as these).
3. Results
Section:
Descriptive statistics for the number of followers of each
account, and the number of tweets sent by each account, are
shown in Table I. Since the number of tweets sent may be a
function of the length of operation of the account, the
registration date for each account is also shown. Perhaps
surprisingly, given the lower number of Twitter users in
Australia, there were no significant differences across countries
in the median number of tweets, followers, or ratio of tweets to
followers (p > 0.1). However Table I shows very large
differences across companies in the number of tweets and in the
number of followers. Differences in the number of followers are
not surprising, since a service like Microsoft (whose US
account had the largest number of followers) might be expected
to have many more followers than a low involvement product
like Dominos pizzas. However, differences in the number of
followers, are not explained by the product type, since
Microsoft Australia had the lowest number of followers, among

all the accounts.
Table I also reveals large intra‐company differences in the
efficiency of organisational Twitter communication, as assessed
by the ratio of followers to total tweets sent; the site with the
largest ratio of followers to tweets (and thus with the highest
efficiency of communication) was Microsoft US, with 93.8
followers for every tweet ever sent. In contrast VirginMobile
Australia and Microsoft Australia had the lowest efficiency,
with more tweets sent than followers as of May 2010. Because
some people will follow for a short time, drop out and be
replaced by others, the ratio of followers at one date to total
tweets ever sent will under‐estimate efficiency of
communication at any one point of time, but the low number of
followers of some organisations, relative to the number of
tweets sent, suggests that a significant amount of corporate time
may be being invested in communicating with a relatively small
number of followers.
3.1 Interpersonal interactivity: use of replies, retweets and
mentions
The interactivity of tweets, based on Rafaeli's (1988) levels of
interactivity, is shown in Table II. There were again no
significant differences in the median percentage of tweets in
any of the three interactivity levels between US, and Australian
companies (p > 0.1). More surprisingly, there was little
evidence of consistent practices across US and Australian
accounts from the same companies: for example Qantas
Australia was the highest user of hashtags, with 60.5 per cent of
its tweets containing hashtags, but only 5 per cent of the tweets
from Qantas US contained hashtags. There were similar stark
differences in the level of reactivity, judged by the percentage
of tweets which were replies to others' tweets: for example only
3 per cent of tweets by Microsoft US were replies, but 77.5 per
cent of tweets sent by Microsoft Australia were replies.
Microsoft and Qantas showed similar inter‐country differences
in the use of retweets and mentions, with Microsoft US being
the largest retweeter, and Microsoft Australia one of the lowest,

and Qantas Australia being the second highest retweeter, and
Qantas US equal lowest.
This apparent inconsistency in practices within organisations
across the two market areas is shown in Figure 1, which
summarises organisational use of hashtags and tweets with
replies. The figure shows a median split to differentiate
organisations, which are low and high on replies, and (due to
the large number of organisations which were low on hashtags)
an upper quartile split to show the three highest users of
hashtags. This categorisation shows one group of organisations
whose tweets were largely reactive, being dominated by replies,
another group (Qantas Australia, Microsoft US and Cosmo US)
which were highly interactive, being the largest users of
hashtags, and another group which was low on both hashtags
and replies. It is notable that the two country accounts from
only two organisations (Billabong and Virgin) fell into the same
group using this categorisation, and of those, Billabong's
consistent categorisation was the result of low use of either
interactivity feature.
3.2 Machine interactivity: use of internal and external
hyperlinks
Table III shows the use of hyperlinks in tweets, or what, in the
context of web sites, has been called “machine interactivity”
(Hoffman and Novak, 1996). There were again no significant
country differences in the use of internal and external
hyperlinks (p > 0.1), and again very little evidence of any
consistency within organisations across countries. For example
Microsoft US and Qantas Australia were the largest users of
internal links, with more than double the use of internal links of
their equivalent other country site.
This apparent lack of strategic consistency in Twitter practices
by the organisations is also demonstrated in Figure 2, which
shows the percentage of tweets with internal and external links
for each organisation. Organisations closer to the top right hand
corner (Billabong Australia and Microsoft US) are highest in
machine interactivity, with high use of both internal and

external links. However imposition of a median split to show
the six top organisations on each dimension reveals only two
organisations (Dominos and Cosmo) having relative consistency
of practice across the two countries, with Dominos' consistency
being caused by low use of either form of links.
4. Discussion
Section:
In an era where many organisations are experimenting with their
use of Twitter, but where there is little evidence on what is best
practice to guide corporate use, the results provide useful data
contrasting the use of Twitter across and within organisations,
and provide a model for future analysis of corporate Twitter
practices. First, the results reveal no consistent differences in
organisational Twitter use between the US, the heaviest user of
Twitter, and by comparable organisations in the less
well‐developed Australian market, suggesting that
organisational use does not reflect any differences in these two
geographic markets. More surprisingly, however, the results
show little evidence of consistent Twitter usage within
organisations, or within those selling the same product in
different geographic markets. The results thus fail to show any
evidence of the strategic consistency, which has been said to be
critical for marketing communications (Duncan and Moriarty,
1998). It is possible that this lack of consistency within
companies is due to different organisational objectives in US
and Australian markets, and Twitter communications, which
have been designed to address those different country
objectives. However the failure to find any consistent
differences in Twitter usage between the US and Australia
suggests that differences in intra‐company Twitter use cannot
be explained by country differences, and may instead reflect
companies' failure to develop strategic consistency in their use
of Twitter in different markets.
A further indication that companies may not be strategically
reviewing their Twitter use is provided by the low efficiency of
Twitter communications by some companies. The most efficient

user was Microsoft US, with over 80,000 followers, and more
than 90 followers for every tweet ever sent. In contrast,
Microsoft Australia had only 820 followers, which equates to
less than one follower for every tweet ever sent. This relative
lack of reach of tweets by Microsoft Australia and other
organisations questions the return on any marketing investment
in Twitter by these organisations. Microsoft Australia's tweets
were also very different in content from the company's far more
efficient US account, being largely reactive, with very low use
of interactivity features such as hashtags, retweets, mentions
and hyperlinks. This clear difference in Tweet content, and in
efficiency of communications, suggests that the factors, which
apparently led to efficient communication by the US account
were not being examined and incorporated into the practices of
the Australian account.
In contrast, despite a lack of common corporate ownership,
Dominos was much more consistent in Twitter practice across
the two accounts, with both accounts' Twitter feed having a high
percentage of replies, frequently to customer complaints,
suggesting that Dominos in both countries is using Twitter as an
online listening device and service recovery channel. While this
strategy clearly has the potential for effective service recovery,
it means that any follower or casual visitor to Dominos' twitter
feed will be confronted with a large percentage of tweets
discussing, or hinting at, problems, e.g. “Sorry to hear that. Can
you let our customer care team know where this
was: http://bit.ly/3vszZ”.
An analysis of the different practices used by organisations thus
reveals different possible Twitter strategies. Dominos' high
level of replies reflects one possible strategy: using Twitter as a
response mechanism. While such a strategy allows organisations
to react rapidly to customer complaints or queries, there was
some evidence that a higher percentage of replies was
associated with a lower number of followers, and thus with
lower efficiency of reach: there was a marginally negative
correlation between the percentage of replies and both the

number of followers and the efficiency of communication
(p=0.07 for each). It is possible that a large percentage of
replies, while allowing interaction with individuals by
responding to their tweets, may result in Twitter content, which
is uninteresting to others, and discourages followers. Thus the
use of Twitter as a one‐to‐one response mechanism may make it
difficult to develop one‐to‐many communications with the same
account. The only account with a high proportion of replies,
which was above the median level of followers, and efficiency
was Qantas US. That site had the highest proportion of replies
(at 91 per cent), but many replies provided information which
was likely to be useful and/or interesting to other followers, e.g.
“Here's a bit for your deal‐o‐the‐day … The Qantas Aussie
AirPass is lower than ever for 4 days
only! http://bit.ly/4DaySale”. Jansenet al.(2009b) have
suggested that organisations should use multiple Twitter
accounts for different purposes, and the Dominos example
suggests that service recovery tweets might be better sent from
a secondary service recovery account, thus avoiding emphasis
on problems in the main corporate account. The main corporate
Twitter account can then be used for promotional and branding
activities or for replies if (like Qantas' replies) those tweets are
likely to be of interest to many followers.
In contrast with the reactive approach of Dominos and Qantas
US, other accounts appeared to use Twitter to increase
interpersonal interaction, but in different ways: Qantas
Australia, Cosmo US and Microsoft US used hashtags to relate
tweets to existing conversational threads, e.g. “A joburg local
gives us some great and detailed advice on her
hometown http://su.pr/1vOg8k #roadtosouthafrica
#johannesburg” (thus making the tweet discoverable on two
separate tweet threads, “roadtosouthafrica” and “johannesburg”,
and making them more likely to be found by people for who the
tweets are relevant and interesting). While there was no
significant correlation between the percentage of hashtags and
the efficiency of corporate communications, Microsoft US and

Cosmo US (two of the three largest users of hashtags) had the
two highest scores for efficiency of communication, suggesting
that increased use of hashtags may, in some cases, lead to larger
numbers of followers.
An alternative method of increasing interaction with one's
Twitter followers is to retweet others' tweets, or refer to tweets
by others. For example Microsoft US was one of the largest
users of retweets and mentions, using tweets to forward tips,
good news stories and favourable publicity, e.g. “TechTarget
writes about how migrating to #Exchange 2010 can save money
on storage http://bit.ly/dwqWqY(via @MicrosoftIW)”.
Forwarding or referring to tweets by others has the dual
potential advantages of communicating an apparently
independent endorsement, and of creating credibility by
referring to, or forwarding favourable tweets by the most
influential users – those whose tweets are frequently
reforwarded by others (Romeroet al., 2010).
Other accounts used tweets to create what has been called
“machine interactivity” (Hoffman and Novak, 1996). For
example across both of its accounts, Billabong was a consistent
high user of internal and external hyperlinks to provide
followers with links to sites relevant to surfing and company
products, e.g. “Check out the Billabong XXL Global Big Wave
Awards web cast LIVE in 45 min @Error! Hyperlink reference
not valid.”. Both internal and external links have the potential
to increase recipient engagement by providing easy access to
relevant and interesting content, unconstrained by the 140
character restriction on tweets. However, external links risk
diverting a follower to another company site. Perhaps to avoid
this problem, Cosmo US appeared to have an implicit strategy
of using Twitter to build internal web site traffic, with very
little use of external links. Instead, Cosmo US sent a large
number of tweets using questions about popular fashion, beauty,
sex, music and TV shows to drive traffic to the corporate web
site, e.g. “what does everyone think about The Hurt Locker
winning Best Picture last night at the #oscars ? should #Avatar

have won?”. This strategy appeared to be very successful in
building the company's web site traffic: one tweet from Cosmo
US stated: “cosmopolitan.com reached 4 million unique users!
the most we've ever had (& the most of all Hearst sites) Thanks
to all of u for clicking!”.
4.1 Managerial implications
The organisations examined here demonstrate a range of
possible Twitter strategies and, as with other areas of
marketing, choice of the best Twitter strategy should depend on
the organisational strategy, and on an assessment of how the
organisation can achieve the best return on its marketing
investment. Measurement of the short‐ and long‐term benefit of
Twitter is not simple, but if, as some of these organisations
demonstrate, an organisational account has only a small number
of followers, this should trigger a review of best practice use of
Twitter, both in other organisational markets and by other
comparable organisations. However the general lack of
consistent practice that we found within organisations suggests
that many organisations are not developing strategic use of
Twitter across the organisation, or learning from what works in
one country, and using that to develop Twitter practice in
another country.
5. Conclusion
Section:
Twitter provides an additional channel in an integrated
marketing communications strategy, and the strategies
employed by each of the 12 Twitter accounts examined here
represent good examples of interactive strategies which have
been identified in literature examining web site design
(e.g. Sundaret al., 2003). Twitter is ideally placed to provide a
highly interactive one‐to‐many information channel, using, like
Microsoft US, a combination of retweets, hyperlinks, and
hashtags to promote positive messages, especially by
independent influential individuals. Twitter can also provide
easy access to information for those to who it is most relevant
or interesting, by pushing users to an internal web site (like

Cosmo US). A Twitter strategy can also be reactive, using
Twitter as a service recovery channel to respond to customer
complaints – both those made directly to the organisation, or
those discovered by monitoring the Twitter feed. Ideally,
however, responses to customer complaints will be made
through a secondary corporate account, in order to avoid
damage to the organisation's reputation by inadvertently
publicising problems. The dual capacity of Twitter for
one‐to‐one and one‐to‐many communication can thus be
harnessed by using the major corporate account for tweets,
which build the corporate brand, and using a secondary, lower
profile account to respond to complaints.
Since this study involved analysis of only 12 corporate
accounts, generalising results to other organisations using
Twitter is difficult. However the lack of consistency across
company accounts revealed here suggests that many
organisations themselves are not sure of their best Twitter
strategy, and are failing to apply learning from one
organisational Twitter account to other corporate accounts.
There is a need for further academic research exploring
different Twitter strategies, to provide better guidance to
organisations on optimising their use of Twitter. The results
from this study can be used as a framework for the further study
of organisational Twitter practice, and as a benchmark for
further company comparisons.
Notes
· Using the
address http://twitter.com/statuses/user_timeline/twitter_id.xml?
count=count&page=page_number]
References
1.

Asur, S. and Huberman, B. (2010), Predicting the Future with
Social Media, HP Labs, Palo Alto, CA, available
at: www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/socialmedia/socialmedi
a.pdf (accessed 24 April 2010).
2.
Barnes, N.G. (2010), The Fortune 500 and Social Media: a
Longitudinal Study of Blogging, Twitter and Facebook Usage
by America's Largest Companies, Dartmouth Center for
Marketing Research, University of Massachusetts
Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, available at:
www1.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesresearch/2010F500.pdf (accessed
21 January 2011).
3.
Bauerlein, V. (2010), “Gatorade's ‘mission’: sell more
drinks”, The Wall Street Journal, Vol. 14, p. B6.
4.
Busby, E., Field, D., Forth, P., Harsaae, J., Rose, J. and Salha,
H. (2010), The CMO's Imperative: Tackling New Digital
Realities, Boston Consulting Group, available
at: www.bcg.com/documents/file66995.pdf(accessed 1 February
2011).
5.
Cheng, A., Evans, M. and Harshdeep, S. (2009), “An in‐depth
look inside the Twitter world”, Sysomos, available
at: www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/ (accessed 15 June 2010).
6.
Coyle, J.R. and Thorson, E. (2001), “The effects of progressive
levels of interactivity and vividness in web marketing
sites”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 65‐77. [CrossRef], [ISI][Infotrieve]

7.
Crawford, K. (2009), “Following you: disciplines of listening in
social media”, Continuum, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp.525‐35. [CrossRef][Infotrieve]
8.
Duncan, T. and Moriarty, S. (1998), “A communication‐based
marketing model for managing relationships”,Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 2,
9.
Ehrlich, K. and Shami, N.S. (2010), “Microblogging inside and
outside the workplace”, Proceedings of the 4th International
AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM
2010), AAAI Publications,Washington, DC.
10.
Fortin, D. and Dholakia, R. (2005), “Interactivity and vividness
effects on social presence and involvement with a web‐based
advertisment”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3,
11.
Ha, L. and James, E.L. (1998), “Interactivity reexamined: a
baseline analysis of early business web sites”,Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Vol. 42 No. 4,
pp. 457‐74. [CrossRef][Infotrieve]
12.
Hoffman, D. and Novak, T. (1996), “Marketing in hypermedia
computer‐mediated environments: conceptual
foundations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 3,
13.

Honeycutt, C. and Herring, C. (2009), “Beyond microblogging:
conversation and collaboration via Twitter”,Proceedings of the
42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
HICSS '09, Hawaii, pp.1‐10.
14.
Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M.M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury,
A. (2009a), “The commercial impact of social mediating
technologies: micro‐blogging as online word of mouth
branding”, CHI '09 Proceedings of the 27th International
Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, Boston, MA, April 4‐9, Association for Computing
Machinery (ACM), New York, NY, pp. 3859‐64.
15.
Jansen, B.J., Zhang, M.M., Sobel, K. and Chowdury,
A. (2009b), “Twitter power: tweets as electronic word of
mouth”, Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, Vol. 60 No. 11,
pp.2169‐88. [CrossRef], [ISI][Infotrieve]
16.
Java, A., Song, X., Finn, T. and Tseng, B. (2007), “Why we
Twitter: understanding microblogging usage and
communities”, Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st
SNA‐KDD Workshop 2007, San Jose, CA, August
12‐15, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), New
York, NY, pp. 56‐65.
17.
Koolstra, C.M. and Bos, M.J.W. (2009), “The development of
an instrument to determine different levels of
interactivity”, International Communication Gazette, Vol. 71
No. 5, pp. 373‐91. [CrossRef][Infotrieve]
18.

Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H. and Moon, S. (2010), “What is
Twitter, a social network or a news media?”,Proceedings of the
19th International World Wide Web (WWW)
Conference, ACM, Raleigh, NC, pp.591‐600.
19.
Lefkow, C. (2010), “Twitter unveils ad plan in profit
push”, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 April.
20.
Macias, W. (2003), “A beginning look at the effects of
interactivity, product involvement and web experience on
comprehension: brand web sites as interactive
advertising”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, pp. 31‐44. [CrossRef]
21.
Ostrow, A. (2010), “Inside Gatorade's social media command
center”, Mashable Blog, available
at: http://mashable.com/2010/06/15/gatorade‐social‐media‐missi
on‐control/ (accessed 21 January 2011).
22.
Pavlik, J. and McIntosh, S. (2011), Converging Media: A New
Introduction to Mass Communication,Oxford University
Press, New York, NY.
23.
Rafaeli, S. (1988), “Interactivity: from new media to
communication”, in Hawkins, R., Wiemann, J.M. andPingree,
S. (Eds), Advancing Communication Science: Merging Mass
and Interpersonal Processes, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills,
CA, pp. 110‐34.
24.
Rafaeli, S. and Sudweeks, F. (1997), “Networked

interactivity”, Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication,
Vol. 2 No. 4. [Infotrieve]
25.
Riemer, K. and Richter, A. (2010), “Tweet inside:
microblogging in a corporate context”, Proceedings of the 23rd
Bled eConference eTrust: Implications for the Individual,
Enterprises and Society, Bled.
26.
Romero, D., Galuba, W., Asur, S. and Huberman,
B. (2010), Influence and Passivity in Social Media, HP
Labs, Palo Alto, CA, available
at: www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/influence/influence.pdf
(accessed 26 August).
27.
Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S. and Munuera, J.L. (2005), “Effects of
interactivity in a web site”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No.
3, pp. 31‐45. [CrossRef][Infotrieve]
28.
Song, J.H. and Zinkhan, G.M. (2008), “Determinants of
perceived web site interactivity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72
No. 2, pp. 99‐113. [CrossRef], [ISI][Infotrieve]
29.
Steuer, J. (1992), “Defining virtual reality: dimensions
determining telepresence”, Journal of Communication, Vol. 42
30.
Sundar, S.S., Kalyanaraman, S. and Brown, J. (2003),
“Explicating web site interactivity: impression formation effects
in political campaign sites”, Communication Research, Vol. 30

31.
Trammell, K.D., Williams, A.P., Postelnicu,
M. and Landreville, K.D. (2006), “Evolution of online
campaigning: increasing interactivity in candidate web sites and
blogs through text and technical features”,Mass Communication
and Society, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 21‐44. [CrossRef][Infotrieve]
32.
Twitter.com (2011), About Twitter, available
at: http://twitter.com/about (accessed 1 February).
33.
Zhao, D. and Rosson, M.B. (2009), “How and why people
Twitter: the role that micro‐blogging plays in informal
communication at work”, Proceedings of the ACM 2009
International Conference on Supporting Group Work, Sanibel
Island, FL, May 10‐13, Association for Computing Machinery
(ACM), New York, NY.

Coca-Cola's Challenge to Reduce Sugar Consumption

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Coca-Cola's Challenge to Reduce Sugar Consumption

Similar to Coca-Cola's Challenge to Reduce Sugar Consumption (13)

More from joellemurphey

More from joellemurphey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Coca-Cola's Challenge to Reduce Sugar Consumption