Cola wars
Question#1
Coca cola’s marketing evaluation could have improved in diverse ways to aid its triumph over Pepsi in the end. Pepsi started around 1970’s and 1980’s with marketing campaigns such as ‘Pepsi Challenge’ and the ‘Pepsi Generation’ that gave Pepsi an upper hand over coke. Coke could have done some study on this to discover certain similar kinds of campaigns to promote a healthy competition between the two- Coke and Pepsi. Coke also invested a lot of money on advertisement, increasing the vending machines and bigger shelf spaces yet there was no positive change in its market share. Coke could have researched how to spend their resources in order to employ it more effectually. It is evident that Pepsi was spending little and gaining the market share, the big question is where was coke then? Research is an important step in advertising since money was wasted yet there various other uses within the organization that money could have helped.
For coca-cola to improve the stated issues above the corporate could do number of things. The change of coke flavor done by the company was quick and by doing more study, the issue may have not been the taste that was suppressing their sales. Companies should look into every latent change to a product, and establish the best fit with diverse study surveys groups, discussions, etc. clients are very instrumental in decision-making since they are the company’s business.
Another manner to improve their marketing study is to be quick on sudden dynamics by competitors. Pepsi took the better market share in Buenos Aires long before Coke had a chance to react.
Question#2
Press and broadcast media are most of the times expresses and shows public opinion. With new Coke, the media worsened the heard instinct by publicizing and making the protests viral. News seems to be more interesting when a critique on someone or something is found wanting. We noted this fanning of protests in Coke’s contamination issues in Europe, to the extent that some individuals came up with psychosomatic sickness after drinking Coca-Cola products. The power of the media not only not only worth recognition but also a factor worth consideration in making decisions that may affect an company’s public image.
The coca cola company just has to bank their hopes on the public. They have to do the necessary research of the markets to know what the customer wants and use data collected in inventing new products that can build the trust back. Nevertheless, they can also get in promotional activities like organizing game in Europe with them being the main sponsors to bring build back the trust. The coca Cola Company can spend some money to help in giving back to the society in Europe i.e. may put up a stadium for kids of a particular area to play on to create a good rapport with the consumers.
Question#3
If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. is such an overused phrase that it has since spawned its own clich- If it isn’t broke, break it. Regrettably, that is just what various companies do accidentally to their branding plans, playing on the palms of public enemy No. 1 in present marketing setting: fragmentation. In this case, there are a number of times that, this old saying would fit. The key one is when Coke developed their new coke formula. They developed or created a new coke formula to draw more consumers but they did not imagine how much it would affect the patriotism that is in the Coke’s reputation and how the fanatics that loved, the former coke recipe would retort. Anger spread all over the country propelled by the media- this forced the company to worry about the boycott of the product by the consumers. They attempted to fix their market share by altering something that was not the issue. When they altered the formula to coke, the American citizens thought of that as the organization turning their backs on the old tradition, on old ways. Coke has become part and parcel of the American way and for it to alter its loved ingredient, the people- Americans- viewed it as, and Coke was selling out.
Question#4
No, I do not think that coca cola engineered the whole episode with the new Coke, as well as fanning early protests, in turn to get a bonanza of free publicity. We find out that the company tried to pull strings to resolve the issue at hand then. It is inhumane for a company trusted with healthy products like coca cola to do issue a contaminated coke to endanger lives of 24 young ones. Besides, later after the first episode we find out that there were more infected people leveraged by the same contamination- and came on board expressing their anger to the press. No company can tarnish its image to an extent of be irrelevant- infamous- just because of publicity. Europe was on big market that Coca Cola Company wished to gain more market shares against their rivals- Pepsi Company. When the coke chairperson was consulted over the issue he acted on the case calling board meetings to solve the issue amicably. If the whole thing was an orchestra by coca cola Company, then I think they would not have gone through the trouble of pulling strings to solve the matter at hand. Quoting from the book- Ivester (coke chairperson) and Coke acted assertively in restoring Coca-Cola yet they could not count their losses.
Question#5
Pepsi faced issues in the international markets especially in Brazil that is a big market for soft drinks and has great potential. In the past twenty-five years, Pepsi attempted to penetrate in the Brazilian market but tremendously failed to do so. Come 1994, Pepsi attempted to capture the market with the aid of Baesa the powerhouse of supper bottler in Brazil. Pepsi spent heavily but underestimated the circumstance. CEO of Coke employed his rapport with the then Brazilian Prime Minister and the government imposed new tax on cola from 4% to 24%. This move strengthened the Coke’s prominence against Baesa. Pepsi spent another 40 million US dollars in Brazilian market but issue remained the same.
I think Pepsi could have prevented the failures the South American disaster. Pepsi Company wanted to expand too quickly in Brazil and Argentina, imprudently banking all its hopes on a distributor with a checkered past, rather than building up rapport slower and more cautiously. Pepsi was to learn from their mistakes considering the fact that they had failed in Brazil thrice.
The Pepsi Company was to scrutinize foreign operations soon enough or closely enough to avert rash expansion of amenities and onerous debt accumulations by associates.
Question#6
I think the best thing Enrico would have done was to lobby Oswaldo and convince him to affiliate with the Pepsi Company. He was to discourage him from the thought of making shares and work together with him since there mutual benefits in the end. Enrico was to realize that Pepsi was not doing well as a company in Venezuela and to grab this chance and even buy off the whole company if it is possible.
Maybe he had his doubts after learning what happened in Brazil with Baesa where they made losses tremendously. There is that possibility but all the same, with the diversity that Pepsi Company has against coca cola company- this was there big break to gain market shares in Venezuela. Besides Oswaldo had experience with the company considering that he had been working for them for almost a decade. Enrico was to buy the company or make sure that he had the highest number of share in that particular company. Better yet they were to retain Oswaldo as one of there own staff to gain momentum in Venezuela over there competition-coca cola company.
Question#7
The scenario where 24 schoolchildren got ill and throwing up after having some Coke as a soft drink seemed almost not the main crisis at the time. Coca cola was to take advantage of this and quickly react to this situation and most of all not letting this information leak to the press. They were to put measures into such as compensation, talk of maybe taking care of the children’s medical bills. There laxity gave room for tension to brew and the problem perpetuated.
Coca cola was to take the immediate scenarios seriously and solve them in good time. Coca cola as a company was to note the intense skepticism and involvement of governmental officials, who claimed complete clarification of the cause and were reluctant to lift bans.
Coca cola did a mistake of not involving the then Coke Chairman Douglas Ivester and other company’s executives in good time. Letting ten days to go by before his subjective intervention was quite a long time for the chairperson to let problems aggravate. In addition, the quality-control drop was not to happen in the ‘rst place- this was a disgrace to the company. Later on, Ivester and Coke acted assertively in restoring Coca-Cola yet they could not count their losses. It was a good thing that the saving the company was a goal achieved after all.
Question#8
Control of market share is the main issue. Both Pepsi and coke are trying to gain momentum on the beverage market. I have feeling that Pepsi can make big inroads in coke’s market share in Europe because Pepsi is always on the front in introducing new products as opposed to coke, who adopted the same. For example, the Pepsi Company has thought beyond soda to bottle water, juice products and not to mention other non-carbonated products. One can easily not that there is diversity in product range when it comes to Pepsi company- they are also in the snack business.
For Pepsi, one way to appreciate their market share is to follow what the customers want in the various countries. The next phase is to introduce a product that that meet demands of a particular area. The two companies cannot produce the same goods for them to triumph; they have to update and create their products and market plans.
Gaining market share occurs only when a corporate is always one-step a head of its competitor by understanding the customers demands. I recommend that the company should do a market study. This way they will capable of getting potential feedback from the consumers. Then evaluate the data and introduce a new product using this data. One the product is ready, get to the marketplace early enough. According to me, with all these factors put into consideration, Pepsi Company can have an upper hand on market share over coca-cola.
Question #9
It is hard to say that coca-cola is growth company since in the present they are losing America’s market shares to their competitor PepsiCo. Pepsi is competitively strong considering the fact that it gains market shares. It is continuing to grow, making adventures in diverse areas. For example, Pepsi has it all, beverages and breakfast food, all aspects of the snack industry deeply covered- this makes the company stronger. What happens when Pepsi becomes dominant in coke’s overseas market? It is essential for coke to move faster than its competitor-Pepsi- to deliver on what the customers wants.
Another assumption is that coca cola will have a slower growth in the coming years since the market is saturated and people are drawing their attention to healthier products. Thus, the company should get back to the drawing board and introduce products that will help retain and capture more customers who have moved to diet versions from sugary soft drinks. Making main decisions in introducing new products by knowing the target customer and making sure the product impresses the customer can help a great deal.
One possible risk for coke and Pepsi is the economy. For instance, when the economy goes in the recessions, the customers will not spend as much as they do when the economy is superior since corporate such as beverages and food are more economically sensitive corporate in the technology sectors and financial services.