Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
Presentation on Cola Wars between Coke and Pepsi
(Presented in Marketing Planning and Implementation-1 Course at MDI Gurgaon)
P.S- Please feel free to share your views in comments.
Presentation on Cola Wars between Coke and Pepsi
(Presented in Marketing Planning and Implementation-1 Course at MDI Gurgaon)
P.S- Please feel free to share your views in comments.
The carbonated soft drink (CSD's) industry was dominated by Coca Cola and Pepsi vying for market share. The CSD organizations gained market share in the U.S. and in global markets extending their brands’ recognition and capturing sales from new markets. The shift in consumer beverage preference and the expansion into global markets proved to uncover new opportunities for growth and profitability. In addition the changes in the organizational structure of business for these companies have allowed them to sustain growth beyond CSD’s.
Cola Wars have continues till date. This presentation presents an analysis of the case Cola wars continues in 2006.
Find out what we have to say about the classic case of competition.
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014 (Case)Tran Thang
PepsiCo was the world’s largest snack and beverage
company, with 2013 net revenues of approximately $66.4 billion. The company’s portfolio of businesses in 2014 included Frito-Lay salty snacks, Quaker Chewy granola bars, Pepsi
soft-drink products, Tropicana orange juice, Lipton Brisk tea, Gatorade, Propel, SoBe, Quaker Oatmeal, Cap’n Crunch, Aquafina, Rice-A-Roni, Aunt Jemima pancake mix, and many other regularly consumed products. The company viewed the
lineup as highly complementary since most of its products could be consumed together. For example, Tropicana orange juice might be consumed during breakfast with Quaker Oatmeal, and Doritos and a Mountain Dew might be part of someone’s lunch. In 2014, PepsiCo’s business lineup included 22 $1 billion global brands.
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014Tran Thang
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014
This study answer to these questions
1. What is PepsiCo’s corporate strategy? Briefly identify the business strategies that PepsiCo is using in each of its consumer business segments in 2014.
2. What is your assessment of the long-term attractiveness of the industries represented in PepsiCo’s business portfolio?
3. What is your assessment of the competitive strength of PepsiCo’s different business units?
4. What does a 9-cell industry attractiveness/business strength matrix displaying PepsiCo’s business units look like?
5. Does PepsiCo’s portfolio exhibit good strategic fit? What value-chain match-ups do you see? What opportunities for skills transfer, cost sharing, or brand sharing do you see?
6. Does PepsiCo’s portfolio exhibit good resource fit? What are the cash flow characteristics of each of PepsiCo’s four segments? Which businesses are the strongest contributors to PepsiCo’s free cash flows?
7. Based on the preceding analysis, what is your overall evaluation of PepsiCo’s business portfolio in 2014? Does the portfolio provide the company’s shareholders with an opportunity for above-average market returns?
8. What strategic actions should Indra Nooyi take to sustain the corporation’s impressive financial and market performance? Should its free cash flows be used to fund additional share repurchase plans, pay higher dividends, make acquisitions, expand internationally, or for other purposes? What other strategic actions should be pursued by corporate level management?
It’s a case presentation of a case study that illustrates how Coke and Pepsi learned to compete in India and what lessons can each company draw from its Indian experience. It also demonstrates obstacles that Pepsi and Coca-Cola faced while entering into the Indian Beverage Drink Market and what kind of strategies they followed to cope-up with those difficulties. It wasn’t easy for both of these companies to establish their business in India as the political environment in India has proven to be critical to company performance for both Pepsi and Coca-Cola India. This case was adapted from public sources only as a basis for classroom discussion. It is not meant to demonstrate whether administrative challenges are effectively managed or ineffectively.
Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at premiumessays.net and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.
The carbonated soft drink (CSD's) industry was dominated by Coca Cola and Pepsi vying for market share. The CSD organizations gained market share in the U.S. and in global markets extending their brands’ recognition and capturing sales from new markets. The shift in consumer beverage preference and the expansion into global markets proved to uncover new opportunities for growth and profitability. In addition the changes in the organizational structure of business for these companies have allowed them to sustain growth beyond CSD’s.
Cola Wars have continues till date. This presentation presents an analysis of the case Cola wars continues in 2006.
Find out what we have to say about the classic case of competition.
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014 (Case)Tran Thang
PepsiCo was the world’s largest snack and beverage
company, with 2013 net revenues of approximately $66.4 billion. The company’s portfolio of businesses in 2014 included Frito-Lay salty snacks, Quaker Chewy granola bars, Pepsi
soft-drink products, Tropicana orange juice, Lipton Brisk tea, Gatorade, Propel, SoBe, Quaker Oatmeal, Cap’n Crunch, Aquafina, Rice-A-Roni, Aunt Jemima pancake mix, and many other regularly consumed products. The company viewed the
lineup as highly complementary since most of its products could be consumed together. For example, Tropicana orange juice might be consumed during breakfast with Quaker Oatmeal, and Doritos and a Mountain Dew might be part of someone’s lunch. In 2014, PepsiCo’s business lineup included 22 $1 billion global brands.
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014Tran Thang
PepsiCo’s Diversification Strategy in 2014
This study answer to these questions
1. What is PepsiCo’s corporate strategy? Briefly identify the business strategies that PepsiCo is using in each of its consumer business segments in 2014.
2. What is your assessment of the long-term attractiveness of the industries represented in PepsiCo’s business portfolio?
3. What is your assessment of the competitive strength of PepsiCo’s different business units?
4. What does a 9-cell industry attractiveness/business strength matrix displaying PepsiCo’s business units look like?
5. Does PepsiCo’s portfolio exhibit good strategic fit? What value-chain match-ups do you see? What opportunities for skills transfer, cost sharing, or brand sharing do you see?
6. Does PepsiCo’s portfolio exhibit good resource fit? What are the cash flow characteristics of each of PepsiCo’s four segments? Which businesses are the strongest contributors to PepsiCo’s free cash flows?
7. Based on the preceding analysis, what is your overall evaluation of PepsiCo’s business portfolio in 2014? Does the portfolio provide the company’s shareholders with an opportunity for above-average market returns?
8. What strategic actions should Indra Nooyi take to sustain the corporation’s impressive financial and market performance? Should its free cash flows be used to fund additional share repurchase plans, pay higher dividends, make acquisitions, expand internationally, or for other purposes? What other strategic actions should be pursued by corporate level management?
It’s a case presentation of a case study that illustrates how Coke and Pepsi learned to compete in India and what lessons can each company draw from its Indian experience. It also demonstrates obstacles that Pepsi and Coca-Cola faced while entering into the Indian Beverage Drink Market and what kind of strategies they followed to cope-up with those difficulties. It wasn’t easy for both of these companies to establish their business in India as the political environment in India has proven to be critical to company performance for both Pepsi and Coca-Cola India. This case was adapted from public sources only as a basis for classroom discussion. It is not meant to demonstrate whether administrative challenges are effectively managed or ineffectively.
Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at premiumessays.net and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.
Get your quality homework help now and stand out.Our professional writers are committed to excellence. We have trained the best scholars in different fields of study.Contact us now at premiumessays.net and place your order at affordable price done within set deadlines.We always have someone online ready to answer all your queries and take your requests.
Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
EssaysExperts.net is the only custom writing service that uses ultra modern approaches coupled with thorough training in providing high quality academic writing services. Our services will enable you achieve success and realize your academic dreams. At http://www.essaysexperts.net/ ,we are the best solution for your acdemic assignments
Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
Our major goal is to help you achieve your academic goals. We are commited to helping you get top grades in your academic papers.We desire to help you come up with great essays that meet your lecturer's expectations.Contact us now at http://www.premiumessays.net/
An industry analysis by Porters Five Forces reveals that the soft dr.pdfalokkesh1
An industry analysis by Porters Five Forces reveals that the soft drink industry has historically
been favorable for positive profitability, as exemplified by Pepsi and Cokes financial outcomes.
Soft drink industry is very profitable, more so for the concentrate producers than the bottler\'s.
This is surprising considering the fact that product sold is a commodity which can even be
produced easily. There are several reasons for this, using the five forces analysis we can clearly
demonstrate how each force contributes the profitability of the industry.
Threat of new entrants
Entering bottling, meanwhile, would require substantial capital investment, which would deter
entry.
although the CP industry is not very capital intensive, other barriers would prevent entry.
Through their DSD practices, these companies had intimate relationships with their retail
channels and would be able to defend their positions effectively through discounting or other
tactics.
It would be nearly impossible for either a new CP or a new bottler to enter the industry. New CPs
would need to overcome the tremendous marketing muscle and market presence of Coke, Pepsi,
and a few others, who had established brand names that were as much as a century old.
Companies that have a door to door distribution channel in place like snack companies could
choose to diversify into soda industry
Switching costs are low for consumers who risk very little by trying new brands or
Beverages
Barriers to entry are relatively high, though, with large advertising budgets and competitive
brand loyalty to big players like Coca-Cola and Pepsi
The drinks with high growth and high hype are non-carbonated beverages such as juice drinks,
sports drinks, tea-based drinks, dairy-based drinks, and especially bottled water
Bargaining power of buyers
through five principal channels: food stores, convenience and gas, fountain, vending, and mass
merchandisers (primary part of \"Other\" in \"Cola Wars…\" case)
Bottlers own a manufacturing and sales operation in an exclusive geographic territory, with
rights granted in perpetuity by the franchiser, subject to termination only in the event of default
by the bottler
1980 Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act preserved the right of CPs to grant exclusive
territories to their bottlers, giving less bargaining power to Bottler\'s buyers because there is no
alternative supplier
Bottlers are locked into contracts that grant CPs the right to set prices and other terms of sale
Bottlers are allowed to handle the non-cola brands of other Cps at their discretion
Bottlers are also given freedom in choosing whether or not to carry new beverages introduced by
the CPs but cannot carry directly competitive brands
Competition for brand shelf space in retail channels gives some bargaining power back to buyers
Threat of substitute products
Through the early 1960s, soft drinks were synonymous with \"colas\" in the mind of consumers.
In the 1980s and 1990s Coffee, tea, water, juices.
Running head PEPSI VS. COKE CASE STUDY .docxtoltonkendal
Running head: PEPSI VS. COKE CASE STUDY 1
PEPSI VS. COKE CASE STUDY 2
Pepsi vs. Coke Case Study
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Pepsi vs. Coke Case Study
Part A
The Worldwide Socioeconomic and Political Environment
Understanding the external environment in which a company operates is crucial for any top management. For instance, the global socio economic and political environment presents many challenges and opportunities for many companies (Wetherly, & Otter, 2014). The demographic and culture of the worldwide market varies. For this reason, the importance of determining what to sell, where, how much, and how to market is increasing. For example, the worldwide market is currently more focused on healthy products. Therefore, companies have to respond to these needs in all aspects. In addition, it has also been noted that social responsibility of a company affects the worldwide image of a brand. The global economic challenges might also affect the liquidity and financial performance of companies, for instance, soft drink and beverage manufacturers such as Coca-Cola Co. and Pepsi Co. In addition, the price of imports, exports, and exchange rates might also affect many industries such as soft drink manufacturers (Wetherly, & Otter, 2014). Finally, the economic environment affects how consumers spending powers, thereby, having an impact in many sectors of the economy. It is also important to note that global political environment presents various risk to many companies. For instance, political instabilities in some parts of the globe and changes in established laws and regulations might prevent companies such as Coca Cola and Pepsi from distributing drinks.
The Domestic Environment
The domestic environment in which Coca Cola Co. and operates presents many challenges and opportunities at the same time. For instance, the strong democratic setup in the US and effective rule of law is considered fair and transparent by most companies. However, the US is also under continuous threat because of the interventionist policies regarding war on terror. In addition, the domestic environment of Pepsi and Coca Cola companies has a well-developed economic system that is supported by many service and manufacturing companies. Like some developed countries, the US is faced with the problem of the aging population. This can contribute to major labor shortage more so for companies operating in the US market. However, with a superior education system, the US has one of most highly trained and skilled employees (Wetherly, & Otter, 2014). However, rising racial bigotry is not only a concern for the government but also for major corporations such as Coca Cola and Pepsi that rely on political stability to sell products. Finally, innovation and technology are considered by m ...
Fils-Aime 13
Valdirene Fils-Aime
Michael Matvichuk
CMGMT 4140 -- Strategic Management
Project: Five-Step Strategic Management Plan Analysis
Coca-Cola Company in the beverages industry
Step I. Corporate Mission and Goals
Brief history of the background and evolution of the organization
Coca-Cola Company is the manufacturer of Coke or Coca-Cola soft drinks. The company was founded in 1886 by John Pemberton. He was inspired by his curiosity as he stirred up a fragrant, caramel-colored liquid that he brought down to a place called Jacobs’ Pharmacy. There he added carbonated water and let several customers sample the new concoction. Although John Pemberton invented Coca-Cola, which is a carbonated soft drink, he later sold it to businessman Asa Griggs Candler, whose smart marketing tactics made the soft drinks to dominate the world of beverages in the entire 20th century. During the introduction stage into the market, the company used to sell nine drinks in Atlanta per day, but currently it is selling more than 19400 beverages every second around the globe (Moran). Its advertising strategies have changed to reach greater markets. Today Coca-Cola is one of the best-known brands around the world. However, when the company started, it used free coupons to promote its product. When Griggs Candler acquired the company, his budget to promote the product was $11,000. In 2011, the company allocated $4 billion for the marketing of its products (Moran). Also, over the decades the bottling of the beverages has changed to differentiate it from other close substitutes. These changes have also been seen in the company logos.
Mission and Vision
Coca-Cola has aimed to maximize its profit while keeping long-term sustainable growth in the beverage industry. The mission statement of the company states that it aims to refresh the world, inspire the moments of happiness and optimism, and create value and build a difference in the world. The vision of the company is their road map and acts as a guide to every aspect of their business by explaining what ought to be accomplished to achieve sustainable and quality growth around the world. It appears that the vision of Coca-Cola consists of 6 P’s which are people, portfolio, partners, planet, profit, and productivity. The company’s values include integrity, collaboration, accountability, diversity, leadership, passion, and quality (“Mission, Vision & Values”). The winning culture of the company explains its behaviors and attitudes that will make their vision 2020 a reality.
General Structure and Leadership Style
The organizational structure of the company is structured in such a way that it operates smoothly, and the growth of the company is enhanced. The company is composed of fifteen board members who include the CEO of the company James Quincey. The board members are all divided, and each of the board heads several other committees. Currently, the company is now divided into three regional groups, which include ...
IntroductionTeam 9 Consulting will be working with Coca-Cola t.docxnormanibarber20063
Introduction
Team 9 Consulting will be working with Coca-Cola to develop an analysis of their marketing strategies. We’ll discuss various facets of the industry and the company and provide a recommendation for their marketing department.
The specific product line that we will be focusing on in our marketing plan is on the Coca-Cola brand drink itself, or Classic Coke. Coca-Cola does have many varieties of Coke, such as Coca-Cola Life, Diet Coke, and Coke Zero that will be touched on throughout this report as well.
Market Profile
Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) is the world's largest beverage company with over 500 brands and 3,900 beverage choices (Coca-Cola, 2017). They aim to continue their growth and “refresh the world” by starting within and making the company a better, more sustainable one. Their main competitors in the beverage industry are Pepsi and Dr Pepper Snapple Inc. (Reference.com, 2017)
Coca-Cola has strong values that guide their business philosophy: Coke supports ideas such as family, togetherness, happiness, and community. This is strongly reflected in their company vision statements.
Mission Statement (Coca-Cola, 2017):
Our Roadmap starts with our mission, which is enduring. It declares our purpose as a company and serves as the standard against which we weigh our actions and decisions.
· To refresh the world...
· To inspire moments of optimism and happiness...
· To create value and make a difference.
Coca-Cola mainly manufactures and sells Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs). As of December 2016 Coca-Cola led the CSD sector with a market share of 40.7% which resulted in approximate sales of $18,630.8 million (Mintel, 2017).
The CSD market is a multi-billion dollar industry seeing approximately $36 billion dollars in revenues each year (Stivaros, 2016). The industry has been in decline in recent years, with CSD sales forecasted to continue falling. The graphic below (Mintel, 2017) illustrates this decline.
Growth Strategy
Coca-Cola has two main growth strategies: strategic initiatives and product development.
Strategic initiatives:
James Quincey, President and COO of Coca Cola, has spoken recently about Coca-Cola’s growth strategy (Bailey, 2016), which is based on the following five initiatives to restore momentum and transform the business: focus on productivity, streamline organization, make disciplined investments, adapt a segmented approach to driving revenue, and focus on its core business model.
Coca-Cola’s business approach of segmenting its operations, such as outsourcing all of their bottling to partners (Coca-Cola, 2017), helps them keep costs low and increase their overall profits.
Product Development:
During a conference call during their 3rd Quarter in 2016 (Bailey, 2016) their Chief Operating Officer noted the following strategies:
· Expanding their sugar free range of sodas
· Working on reformulating existing products to contain less sugar
· Packing their soda in smaller containers
· Expanding their range.
TAX MEMOTo FromSubjectDateI. Purpose the purpose.docxssuserf9c51d
TAX MEMO:
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
I. Purpose: the purpose of this memo is to brief…..
II. Facts: Who is the petitioner?:
Who is defendant?:
And relevant information. Explain what happen in the case
III. Issues: Is …. taxable? (List all the tax issues)
IV. Conclusion: Yes, it is taxable (Only list answer to Issues, no explanation needed)
V. Analysis: Why and how? (Explanations needed )
PepsiCo: Is diversification a choice?
Mohamed Ezz, MD, DM (UMUC)
PepsiCo (PEP)
www.pepsico.com
Overview
PepsiCo, a world leader in beverages, food, and snacks with net revenues of more than $ 65 billion, has a product portfolio of 22 of the most iconic brands in the industry; each of which has annual retail sales of more than one billions dollars. PepsiCo is the world’s # 2 carbonated beverage maker. The company’s brand portfolio includes (PepsiCo, 2016):
A. Beverages: Pepsi, 7-Up, Mountain Dew, Sierra Mist, Mirinda, Gatorade, Tropicana, Lipton, and Aquafina.
B. Snacks: Doritos, Frito-Lay, Tostitos, Ruffles, Cheetos, Fritos, Brisk, and Walkers,
C. Foods: Quaker Oates and Rice-A-Roni.
PepsiCo: History & Background (Hoovers, 2016)
Pepsi was invented in 1898 by pharmacist Caleb Bradham in New Bern, North Carolina. He named his new drink Pepsi-Cola and marketed it as a cure for indigestion and dyspepsia. Bradham followed Coca-Cola’s bottling franchise model and by World War I 300 bottlers had signed up. Following the war, Bradham started stockpiling sugar to safeguard against rising prices; however, in 1920 sugar prices plunged, leading to his bankruptcy in 1923.
After changing ownership for some time, Loft Candy bought the company in 1931. During the Depression (1939), the company doubled the size of its bottles to 12 ounces without raising its price, which helped improve its fortune. In 1939 Pepsi introduced the first radio jingle in the world. In 1941, Loft Candy merged with its Pepsi subsidiary to create the Pepsi Cola Company.
The company acquired Mountain Dew in 1964 and Frito Lay in 1965, and changed its name to PepsiCo. In 1972 PepsiCo began distributing Stolichnaya vodka in the States in return for being the only Western firm allowed to bottle soft drinks in the Soviet Union. PepsiCo bought Pizza Hut (1977), Taco Bell (1978), and KFC (1986) and became a formidable force in the fast food industry. In the period from 1991 - 1996 PepsiCo aggressively expanded its international bottling operations; however, it was no match Coca-Cola's well-oiled international distribution machine. The Company then focused its attention to the organization of its international network.
In 1997, PepsiCo spun off its $10 billion fast-food unit (currently Yum! Brands), which better positioned to sell its soft drinks at other restaurants. Also in 1997 PepsiCo bought Smith snacks and Borden's Cracker Jack snack from United Biscuits. In 1998, PepsiCo bought Seagram's Tropicana juices, the main competitor to Coca Cola’s minute Maid for $3.3 billion. In 1999, the c ...
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Ethnobotany and Ethnopharmacology:
Ethnobotany in herbal drug evaluation,
Impact of Ethnobotany in traditional medicine,
New development in herbals,
Bio-prospecting tools for drug discovery,
Role of Ethnopharmacology in drug evaluation,
Reverse Pharmacology.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
We all have good and bad thoughts from time to time and situation to situation. We are bombarded daily with spiraling thoughts(both negative and positive) creating all-consuming feel , making us difficult to manage with associated suffering. Good thoughts are like our Mob Signal (Positive thought) amidst noise(negative thought) in the atmosphere. Negative thoughts like noise outweigh positive thoughts. These thoughts often create unwanted confusion, trouble, stress and frustration in our mind as well as chaos in our physical world. Negative thoughts are also known as “distorted thinking”.
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
The Art Pastor's Guide to Sabbath | Steve ThomasonSteve Thomason
What is the purpose of the Sabbath Law in the Torah. It is interesting to compare how the context of the law shifts from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Who gets to rest, and why?
Operation “Blue Star” is the only event in the history of Independent India where the state went into war with its own people. Even after about 40 years it is not clear if it was culmination of states anger over people of the region, a political game of power or start of dictatorial chapter in the democratic setup.
The people of Punjab felt alienated from main stream due to denial of their just demands during a long democratic struggle since independence. As it happen all over the word, it led to militant struggle with great loss of lives of military, police and civilian personnel. Killing of Indira Gandhi and massacre of innocent Sikhs in Delhi and other India cities was also associated with this movement.
1. Cola Wars
The war between Cola and Pepsi has continued to grow despite the
effort to grasp world’s beverage market. With efforts aimed at
generating $ 66 billion carbonated soft drink industry. The struggle
continued from 1990 and 1975 enabled companies to achieve annual
average revenue of about ten percent of the global consumption
increased. In the study of this case, the issues that make up the focal
point of this paper include whether growth in sales fell short of the
expectations of the investor.
The paper shall at the same focus on the understanding as to whether
there is a new rivalry from brand or other carbonated drinks.
Knowledge as to whether the war is only about coke is also a question
that shall make up the focus of this study alongside whether there is
need for creation of a new product because of health
recommendations.
History of the Cola Wars
Cola wars in other words lasted for 100 years when both drinks were
created in 1800s at the cascade counter. By then Pepsi, was selling 12
ounces of its beverages at 5 cents while coke was selling 6.5 ounces for
5 cents. Because of this Pepsi Company almost went bankrupt but it
later on emerged in the 1930s. Coke during World War II and this made
it expand in size compared to Pepsi (Datta, 2001).
Even so, Pepsi in 1970s managed focused on supermarkets doubling its
shares, a strategy in which Coke did not emphasize on. According to a
challenge held in Dallas and Texas by a small Pepsi bottle revealed that
Pepsi was indeed a better brand than Coke thus losing the national
market share (Yoffie, 2004). The message was heated up when Coca-
2. Cola Company was taken over by Robert Goizueta and started
purchasing its bottlers.
Robert also introduced the diet coke and transformed Coca Colas
formula. There was also vertical integration as well as disintegration by
the company where coke enterprise spun off its bottlers and developed
new anchor bottlers. Coke managed the bottlers without owning them.
Pepsi by 1990 was forced to imitate Coke by regulating the bottlers
without owning them because the commercial venture was not
profitable (Chura, 2003).
Cola wars in terms of evaluation, had tools that will be utilized to
evaluate the case including the five Porter’s forces and SWOT analysis.
Brief and Relevant facts regarding the case
The growth rate of Cola and Pepsi according to available reports
indicates an increase between 1975 and the 1990s. The industry at the
same time had revenue of $ 66billion of the carbonated drink.
Americans also consumed 23 gallons CDs in 1970 (Mazzucato, (2002).
The cola wars case is also trying to include some elements of
competitive dynamics and historical patterns of vertical
integration in the US soft drink industry. The concentrate
manufacturers produced a wide range of raw materials and packaged
the blend in plastic canisters that were transported to bottlers to make
concentrate diet. Other products included sweeteners added to CSDs
and with the normal CSDs, the bottlers only needed to add high
fructose or sugar to the drink.
The best known producers of concentrate were Pepsi and Coke but in
mid 1990s, the two diversified their operations and maintained direct
control of bottling networks. The concentrate business in 1990 was
more profitable compared to the bottling business. Nonetheless, the
bottling business suffered in the following years because manufacturers
3. of the concentrate were not in a position to squeeze the bottles
without impacting their personal distribution.
The people who had invested in the bottling business would also get
margins ranging from seven to nine percent. Between the years 1970 to
2004, the number of bottlers reduced significantly from 2000 to 300
and as a result, coke became the first producer of concentrate to
develop a franchise followed by Schweppes and Pepsi. The major
assumptions used for the study include
Coke SWOT analysis
One of coke’s company strengths is the benefit of having mover
products as well as a large client base. The company at the same time
had a large market share allowing it to produce in large quantities thus
promoting economies of scale. The company has global brand
recognition with large distribution networks and global activities that
are highly successful. The introduction of coke was the company’s
strength.
Some of the company’s weaknesses included the fact that it faced
brand failure thus generating product recalls. Focusing on global market
at the same company made the company to shun from its focal
competencies.
On the other hand, opportunities for the company included creation of
innovative advertisement methods, new brands introduction and new
global markets. Even so, it still faced barriers including entry to global
markets, fierce competition and onset of new beverages.
Pepsi SWOT analysis
Pepsi’s strengths included the fact that it mainly focused on young
generation CSDs thus increasing its sales. Because of mass production,
the company was in a position to have large economies of scale and to
employ gorilla methods for instance Dallas challenge. The other
4. strength of the company included global brand recognition, flexible
franchise networks, large distribution networks and creative marketing
strategies (Gillespie & Hennessey, 2011).
Some of the weaknesses included smaller market share compared to
that of coke, falling behind renowned markets and slow take off
especially in global markets imitating Coca-Cola bottle specifically in
South America and in Venezuela. The opportunities for the company
included introduction of healthy drink Pepsi, the company’s beverage
image and its capability to venture into global market and new brand
introduction.
The company additionally is faced by major threats including fear to
lose market share because of market fluctuation. At the same time,
barriers to entry to global markets are a major threat. Reducing brand
loyalty and new age drinks also poses a significant threat and
competition from local markets selling their products at lower prices.
The five forces analysis of the cola wars
The soft drink industry is profitable and lucrative for producer of
concentrate compare to the bottlers because of ease of production of
the CSDs. There are reasons that clearly demonstrate the two entities
profitability via the five forces and they include
Threats of entrants
There were low entry barriers based on the fact that the two
organizations have franchise agreements with their bottlers therefore;
they have specific rights in given geographical areas. The companies at
the same time have bought different bottling companies thus, making it
hard for new entrants to get willing buyers to distribute their products.
The companies at the same time have the benefit of economies of scale
thus, allowing for mass production and sell of products at relatively
lower prices. This is a move that could lead to losses for new entrants.
5. The two companies in terms of advertisement heavily invested on
promotion making it almost impossible for new entrants to competent
with the two and achieve visibility.
The two companies at the same time because of their business period
have already built brand images and global client loyalty. This could
make it hard for new entrants to reach such heights in soft drink
markets (Oldroyd, 2012). Any retailer the two companies’ product is
given margins between 15 and 20 percent for shelve space. This being
the case, new entrants would have a hard time trying to convince
retailers to substitute their new products of the two, coke and Pepsi.
As a result, the big organizations may retaliate in case there are new
entrants with different prices that would affect them. What’s more, the
entry would force one to highly invest in fixed costs as well as
distribution charges which can be difficult.
Supplier’s power
Since there are just a few requirements for concentrate merchandise,
the supplier’s bargaining power is relatively low. This is based on the
fact that many supplies include carbon dioxide, sugar and caffeine
among other basic commodities (Jeffs, 2008). Therefore this leaves the
supplier with no bargaining power over pricing because of weak
suppliers.
Power of Buyers
According to market share order as indicated in exhibit 6, the main
channels for soft drinks are Fast food foundation, food stores,
convenience stores and vending among others (Yoffie & Slind, 2006).
Being the case, the buyer’s power has been significantly increasing
because of retail consolidation, large number of major players and
discount prices that are highly sensitive.
6. Convenience stores are also highly fragmented and as a result, the
companies need to pay high prices. At the same time, vendors directly
sell to clients hence; they have no power over consumers or buyers.
Threat of substitute
There are many substitutes in the soft drink industry including beer,
juice, water and coffee among others available to end users. Many
clients are turning from CDSs to non-alcoholic options based on health
issues in regards to carbonated drinks leading to obesity and poor
health.
Despite the threat being relatively high, concentrate manufacturers
adverts, accessibility of the products and brand equity help to provide
the products mainly for clients, a fact that many clients cannot realize
or meet. These organizations at the same time offer the substitutes to
protect themselves from cut throat competition.
Rivalry
It is with no doubt that soft drink industry operates in a duopoly setting
with main competitors being Pepsi and Coke. The market for other
companies is too small because of the effect in the structure of the
industry. The two companies do not agree on advertisement and
differentiation and not on pricing thus, preventing the possibility to
trading at loss (Gupta, 2009).
Key difficulties while conducting the analysis
Different challenges were encountered when carrying out the analysis
including the fact that it was hard to understand how the actual
consumers boycott effect in Dallas. The international impact of the
products at the same time in other countries in relevance to
internationalization and diversification has not been exhausted.
7. There were wars and counter wars between the two companies and
this did not reveal the impact of the other emerging two brands in the
market. Lastly, there were geographical areas where other brands
besides Pepsi and coke did not perform well and this has not been
recorded. The ownership percentages also in the market share could
not be verified clearly because the main focus was on the two major
brands.
Limitations of the analysis
Difficulty in access of factual record of information of other beverages
consumption besides the two major brands was a major limitation for
the study. The other limitation is the fact that the study was restricted
to the US only and as a result, the impact on other states cannot be
ascertained. The study therefore limits itself on Pepsi and coke only
comparing only the two.
Conclusions from the Cola Wars
The competing wars between Pepsi and Cola and growing substitutes is
affecting the sales and performance of the two brands. Introduction of
new brands with different tastes in various markets is one of the
available options. It is clear that Coke gained world culture and as a
result, they can divide the market into manageable sections with
various needs.
They should at the same time focus on globalization where the globe is
generally considered and it only needs what it can be offered. The
companies by focusing on demographics are in a position to meet
different client needs whether non-carbonated or carbonated. The Five
porter’s analysis despite this fact reveals that Coke and Pepsi will still
enjoy a large market share despite changes in the market.
8. This is based on the availability of few threats in the market and low
suppliers bargaining power with buyers enjoying moderate bargaining
power and low substitute threats as well as low economic rivalry.
The two companies therefore ought to face cropping challenges using
healthy sweeteners to counter aerated drinks claims that they can lead
to obesity facing them. They also need to employ a green strategy to
create customer loyalty and enhance their brand. Additionally, they
need to settle for more advertising and promotional strategies besides
growing their shelf space.
You can buy an essay that is well written and perfectly formatted such
as this by contacting our support team
at http://www.premiumessays.net/ . We have skilled writers working
for us and they will work with dedication and discipline to ensure the
paper you buy is 100% custom written for you.
9. References
Capparell, S. (2008). The Real Pepsi Challenge: The Inspirational Story of
Breaking the Color Barr. Simon and Schuster.
Chura, H, (2003, Marcb 10), Lemon-lime the battlefront in this
summer’s cola wars. Advertising Age, 74(10), 15.
Datta, J, (2001, April 23), India: It’s a ‘virtual’ cola war, BusinessLine
(Cbennai), p, 1,
Gillespie, K., & Hennessey, H. D. (2011). Global marketing. Australia:
South-Western Cengage Learning.
Gupta, M. (2009). Principles of management. New Delhi: PHI Learning
Pvt. Ltd.
Jeffs, C. (2008). Strategic management. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Mazzucato, M., & Open University. (2002). Strategy for business: A
reader. London: Sage.
Oldroyd, M. (2012). CIM Coursebook Marketing Environment 07/08.
Routledge.
YofFie, D, (2004). Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-
First Century. Harvard Business Review, 9-702-442,
Yoffie, D. B., & Slind, M. (2006). Cola wars continue: Coke and Pepsi in
2006. Harvard Business School Pub..
- See more at: http://www.premiumessays.net/articles/cola-wars-
continue-coke-and-pepsi-in-2006/#sthash.g7reyTyF.dpuf