lydgate@reed.UUCP (Chris Lydgate) (07/14/85)
I think Coca-Cola has scored a major psychological coup in its battle for its share of the soft-drink market. For many years, the quintessential choice has been: Coke or Pepsi. Now, however, teh choice is: Old Coke or New. Coca-Cola wins either way, and steals the thunder from Pepsi. Coke becomes its own rival, and therefore can't lose. -- chris lydgate c/o the information vortex !tektronix!reed!lydgate
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/15/85)
> Now, however, the choice is: Old Coke or New. ... Coke becomes its own > rival, and therefore can't lose. This is somewhat of a new thing, I guess, in cola soft drinks, but has been commonplace in some other consumer products for a long time. Look at antiperspirants, for example. There are literally dozens of brands -- all made by 2 or 3 companies. Thus if you don't like one brand, or decide to try something new, the probability is fairly high you will just choose another brand made by the same company... (It appears to me -- though this is just my observation -- that soft drinks and "health & beauty aids" are probably the two items with the most clever marketing. Both seem in a sense to be involved in the "create a need and fill it" method of selling products; both use indirect methods to convince you to buy their product: colas by depicting high-energy people in fast- moving commercials [which has come a long way from the old sign I saw in an antique store once for a now-defunct cola, "gives a lift just like coffee!"], H&BA products by worrying you that you will be socially unacceptable if you don't use their products. Maybe this is why recently so many microcomputer-related companies have hired people from the cosmetic and soft drink industries into top management positions?) -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Gur ArgArjf... n qlvat pbzzhavpngvba sbez?
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (07/17/85)
<This NEW! bug line will replace the Old (Classic) bug line.>
While I agree that Coke is now in competition with itself to
a greater degree than ever before, let us not forget that Coke
has been in competition with itself for quite a while. Dr. Pepper,
the advertising for which is overtly anti-cola, is a product
of the Coca-Cola company! Coke also makes many other soft drinks
that you have to look at the label with a magnifying glass to
find out that they are made by Coke.
Robert Perlberg
Resource Dynamics Inc.
New York
{philabs|delftcc}!rdin!perlsilber@lasspvax.UUCP (Jeffrey Silber) (07/22/85)
In article <487@rdin.UUCP> perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) writes: >While I agree that Coke is now in competition with itself to >a greater degree than ever before, let us not forget that Coke >has been in competition with itself for quite a while. Dr. Pepper, >the advertising for which is overtly anti-cola, is a product >of the Coca-Cola company! Coke also makes many other soft drinks >that you have to look at the label with a magnifying glass to >find out that they are made by Coke. > >Robert Perlberg Note: Dr. Pepper is not a Coca-Cola product. Nor is Sunkist, Welch's, or many other items that are bottled by Coca-Cola bottlers. Unlike Pepsi, which owns 1/3 of their bottlers, Coke does not own their bottling companies. They have on occasion bought some of them to resell to friendly corporations, but they have no interest in the bottling business. The bottlers, as independent businesses, are free to bottle other products (within the limits established by their contract with Coke -- they cannot bottle another Cola, for example). Also, in response to another question, Coca-Cola owned Taylor Wines and a few others, but sold the group (called Wine Spectrum) to Seagrams several months ago. Incidentally, Seagrams mixers, bottled by Coca-Cola bottlers in many areas are not owned by Coca-Cola, but at least one Coca-Cola bottler does own part of the brand.