blanchet@topaz.ARPA (Ed Blanchett) (07/08/85)
I can't help but wonder why the sudden change in the Coke formula? After all, the old style was not exactly putting them in the poor house... And also, now that public opinion seems to be so against the change, there is no indication that they are planning to pull the new one off/market the old one as well that would be expected of a company that could have the capital to admit they made a mistake and compromise. Maybe the reason behind the switch was not all business as it was hyped up to be. Unfortunately, I have no information to back it up, but something just seems a little fishy about Coca-Cola's business practice here. -Ed Blanchett ARPA: BLANCHETT@RU-BLUE.ARPA UUCP: ..(ihnp4!ut-sally, seismo, allegra!packard)!topaz!blanchett -- ARPA: BLANCHETT@RU-BLUE.ARPA UUCP: ..(ihnp4!ut-sally, seismo, allegra!packard)!topaz!ru-blue!blanchett
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (07/09/85)
I don't know, but stockbrokers pull this kind of crap all the time.
Most household commodity manufacturers live this way, too; so why not
the Coca-Cola Corporation USA?? (How ** Many ** times have Tide or Pampers
been improved in the last 3 years ????)
Soft drink growth has been flat: less than 3 %/yr. Beverages as an
industry (including hard spirits, beer and wine) have been doing even
worse. Coca-Cola USA has been whipped at_the_fountain for years. In
addition, CCUSA has some loser units, such as Columbia Pictures (including
television) and some participation in independent UHF TV stations, which
ain't cheap. Their commodity brands have been pretty flat, too (heard
any controversy over Minute Mud frozen orange bush by-products lately ??)
So why not change and get some cash flow (and free publicity); then
change back (more cash flow, more publicity). Saturation advertiting just
doesn't have the impact of Dan Rather covering the NY news conference
announcing the new Coke.
Was the worldwide formulation changed (do people in Bombay have to
suffer with that ^#^%$(*^)(*^(*% disgusting fluid as well?)
Perhaps they were imbibing a bit of atropine with that extra radical
attached ? The way I see it, CCUSA could accomplish a lot more by 1) fixing
their product packaging--particularly cans-- so that the product inside
didn't acquire the taste of the can and 2) GET THOSE DAMN PEOPLE WHO SERVICE
FOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT TO FOLLOW THE RECIPIE (including correct C02 line pressure,
clean lines and water, etc) faithfully. Coke tastes rottener than Pepsi
at the typical undermaintained fountain. People who pump bilge water don't
do much good for Coke, either.
Frankly, this 'abrupt change' business isn't to be believed. When I
was in grammar school, a Coke left to stand for a few hours developed
these twisty particulate thingies at the bottom (mom said it was caramel?)
and they all tasted much better. Then again, the pull tab can hadn't been
invented yet and they cost 15 cents at the expensive places.
'Nuff said.
David Anthony
Chief Soft Drink Taste-Tester
DataSpan, Inc.
UUCP: (akgua, philabs, decvax, mcnc)!unccvax!dsi
.mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (M. A. Upmalis) (07/09/85)
Two quick comments, usually when a product is changed, it gets test marketed, coke did not do that, coke went for the change right away this suggests that they are not as concerned about the vocal, but small (25+ years) cola market, they are looking at the big market, the kids. Coke probably anticipated a loss to pespi in the younger market where the future lies, (habits of my youth are customs of my dotage) and Coke want to grab the attention and tastebuds of the "new generation" Coke doesn't care, about the Old Coke drinkers, they want to secure the new New cola drinkers.... -- Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo> ihnp4!watmath!watarts!mupmalis