[net.misc] Coke isn't it

gordon@scgvaxd.UUCP (Gordon Howell) (04/26/85)

Okay.... I've endured a lot of abuse in my time, but this is the final
straw!

**** They are changing the Coca-Cola formula!!!!!!!!!! ****

Is nothing sacred??!!!
They might as well outlaw the Beatles, or change God's name, or reinstate
prohibition.

For those of you out there who are confirmed cocaholics such as myself,
I encourage, nay, INSIST that you call Lucy at (213) 746-5555x4249
to complain about the change.

Tearfully submitted,  gordon

jayj@hpisla.UUCP (Jay Johannes) (05/03/85)

 RE: New COKE formula.

 We were discussing this the other evening, and someone came up
 with an interesting thoery.

 Seems that COKE signed a contract in the early 1900s with their
 original distributors to sell their original formula for a fixed 
 price (a price cap). Since then inflation has really hit hard, and
 COKE has been actively buying distributors for the last few years
 to get rid of the contracts, and then reselling the distributorships
 at terms more lucrative to COKE.

 However, if they change the formula, then the agreement no longer applies.
 COKE can afford to lose market share, and still make larger profits. The only
 ones who lose are the consumers and the distributors.

 Some of this is verifiable, some is pure conjecture. Treat this as net.rumor.

 Jay Johannes
 Loveland, Colo.

adm@cbneb.UUCP (05/07/85)

These days there aren't any companies that can loose market share --
including Coke.  The boys at Coke are taking a big chance.  It will
be interesting to see how it all turns out.

dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (05/20/85)

The original Coke distributorships were pretty old style agreements
purporting to bind the two parties forever but I don't think they
had anything in there about selling the formula unless Coke went out
of business or something.
-- 
	+1 617-492-8860		Donald E. Eastlake, III
	ARPA:  dee@CCA-UNIX	usenet:	{decvax,linus}!cca!dee