mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) (05/12/85)
Anybody out there done a blind taste test comparing things like the new and old Coke, Pepsi, and RC Cola? To me, the new Coke is smoother and flatter than the old Coke - it's moved in the direction of Pepsi. In fact, I suspect it's now flatter than Pepsi, which should make it taste almost exactly like RC. Since I like Pepsi, I like this move (sometimes you can only get Coke.) However, people who liked the old Coke aren't going to be happy. Mark
paul@mogwai.UUCP (Paul H. Mauritz) (05/14/85)
In article <1169@cbosgd.UUCP>, mark@cbosgd.UUCP (Mark Horton) writes: > Anybody out there done a blind taste test comparing things like > the new and old Coke, Pepsi, and RC Cola? To me, the new Coke My wife and I conducted a blind taste test among co-workers and friends with following results: Coke drinkers who like new coke 0 Coke drinkers who dis-like new coke 7 Non-Coke drinkers who like new coke 4 Non-Coke drinkers who dis-like new coke 6 Interesting to say the least. BTW Does anyone know the rumored toll-free number Coke has to complain about the taste? -- Paul H. Mauritz - Digital Equipment Corporation UUCP: {decvax,decuac}!paul ARPA: decuac!paul@seismo.ARPA AT&T: (301) 474-4091 USPS: 8301 Professional Place, Landover MD USA EARTH 20785, MS-DCO/913 "Why is it that there are so many more horses' asses than there are horses? - G. Gordon Liddy
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (05/15/85)
> To me, the new Coke > is smoother and flatter than the old Coke - it's moved in the > direction of Pepsi. In fact, I suspect it's now flatter than Pepsi, > which should make it taste almost exactly like RC. > > Since I like Pepsi, I like this move (sometimes you can only get Coke.) > However, people who liked the old Coke aren't going to be happy. > Interesting observation. I prefer Pepsi, but often buy C*ke when I don't want something that sweet. Now that Coke is that sweet, there is no reason for me to buy it. Brilliant, guys! * Coke is not a trademark of Bell Laboratories. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA "MU" said the Sacred Chao...
smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (05/16/85)
Interesting study, Paul. I can see it now. The Coke complaint number
gets many calls. People yell to go back to old Coke. Coke comes out
later saying, alas, we could not improve on the best thing and we
will switch back. Nothing beats Coke!
I don't know if I should use a smiley face here, since this caould very
well be what the whole Coke campaign is about, so, signing off as
:-)/2
--
--steve kramer
{allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!smk (UUCP)
linus!axiom!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (05/16/85)
me thinks it time for another poll on netland!
if i get a statistically meaningful number of responses (via mail only)
i will post a summary to this news group.
(i hate complicated polls)
cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------
1. pick one:
[ ] I like the new coke better.
[ ] I really don't care.
[ ] I like the old coke better.
2. are you going to switch to another softdrink because coke changed?
[ ] yes
[ ] I already drink another brand
[ ] no
cut here---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
----------
"Is anything really real?"
...akgua!galbp!bingphil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (05/20/85)
In article <43@axiom.UUCP> smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) writes: >Interesting study, Paul. I can see it now. The Coke complaint number >gets many calls. People yell to go back to old Coke. Coke comes out >later saying, alas, we could not improve on the best thing and we >will switch back. Nothing beats Coke! > >I don't know if I should use a smiley face here, since this caould very >well be what the whole Coke campaign is about, so, signing off as Isn't it motivated by the high cost of sugar relative to the fructose syrup Pepsi uses? -- What do you do the day after a peak experience? Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
bob@plus5.UUCP (Bob Simpson) (05/20/85)
In article <43@axiom.UUCP>, smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) writes: > Interesting study, Paul. I can see it now. The Coke complaint number > gets many calls. People yell to go back to old Coke. Coke comes out > later saying, alas, we could not improve on the best thing and we > will switch back. Nothing beats Coke! Anybody know which anniversary Coke is coming up on? Someone around here said that the 100th was just around the corner... -- Dr. Bob UUCP ..!ihnp4!plus5!bob The opinions expressed here are only loosely based on the facts.
john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer) (05/20/85)
>From: mom@sftri.UUCP (Mark Modig) >Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit N.J. >Message-ID: <439@sftri.UUCP> > >Anyway, I heard that they stumbled across the formula a couple of >years ago when they were conducting taste tests for Diet Coke. They >ran some marketing tests and found out that people preferred this new >formula to the old one by a fairly large margin, as is stated above. > >But what I still don't understand is why the change was made, rather >than adding the new Coke. People who like the old Coke and bought it >on a reasonably regular basis don't seem to like it, and many seem to >be saying they're not going to buy the new version. The problem is that they are already fighting the "Cola Wars" on too many fronts- Diet Coke, Caffeine-Free Coke, Caffeine-free Diet Coke- in addition to Tab (which I always thought was diet Coke), Sprite, Fresca, Fanta, etc. A new flavor of Coke would have to have spun off the diet and caffeine-free variations, therefore, it would really be like adding FOUR new softdrinks. This would have been hell for dealers, distributors, and consumers. (Could you see the size of the vending machine?) From that standpoint, they made the right decision. The real question is whether a decision needed to be made at all. Only time will tell if Coke made the right choice. If loyalty to Old Coke is too high, they may have cut their corporate throats. Even if it is not, they still have to deal with Pepsi. Is this new taste enough to sway Pepsi drinkers away from "the taste of a new generation" and get them to say, "This is it." *Sigh* -- Name: John Ruschmeyer US Mail: Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764 Phone: (201) 222-6600 x366 UUCP: ...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john ...!princeton!moncol!john ...!pesnta!moncol!john Silly Quote: "Oh sair, it was Kahn. We found him in an unlinked inode. He put creatures in our bodies... made us post lies, say things, flame things, but keptin was strong..."
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (05/21/85)
If memory serves me correctly, the change from sugar to more corn sweeteners was made quite some time ago (without any public fanfare) and is unrelated to the current "New Coke" taste change. --Lauren--
avolio@decuac.UUCP (Frederick M. Avolio) (05/22/85)
I wonder if Coke's problem is competition with itself. I have seen
simple charts showing Coke vs. Pepsi, and Diet Coke vs. other diet
soft drinks. Coke is slipping and Diet Coke is rocketing. I wonder
how many people Coke lost to Diet Coke? I know many people who hated
Tab and liked Coke and started drinking Diet Coke when it came out
because they finally found a diet soft drink they liked. It tasted
like a good Coke.
--
Fred Avolio {decvax,seismo}!decuac!avolio 301/731-4100 x4227jeffm@mmintl.UUCP (Jeffrey Miller) (05/22/85)
* For those of you who can't get through to express your opinions on the Coke hotline, their address is The Coca Cola Bottling Company 310 North Ave. N.W. Atlanta, GA 30313 My letter commenting on their major blunder is going out today, and I'll probably send it to their public relations dept. (if they have one). By the way, I bought a 6-pack of the new stuff just to form my opinion from more than one can. The cans I bought were normal red with aluminum (not gold colored) tops. The cans said "New" or "New Coke" in a big diagonal stripe on the side. Has anyone ever tried adding cherry or vanilla syrup to Pepsi? The taste is not good. What am I going to do now with my cherry and vanilla syrup? Certainly not change to Cherry Coke, which tastes like cheap movie theater black cherry soda, not the real thing. Jeff Miller Multimate International
wjr@x.UUCP (Bill Richard) (05/25/85)
> If memory serves me correctly, the change from sugar to more corn > sweeteners was made quite some time ago (without any public fanfare) > and is unrelated to the current "New Coke" taste change. > > --Lauren-- > It's my understanding that the FDA's labeling rules require a distinction between sugar and corn syrup in ingredients lists on the label. I am at this moment looking at a can of the new Coke (yetch, horrible stuff) and the list reads the same as the old Coke, "carbonated water, sugar, carmel color, phosphoric acid, natural ^^^^^ flavorings, caffeine". Examining the ingredients lists of a few other random soft drinks I have found the phrase "sugar and/or corn {syrup, sweetener}", so I conclude that neither the old or the new Coke has any corn syrup in it. By the way, if any body missed it, the number to call to complain about the tase of the new Coke is 1-800-GET-COKE. It's active from 8 am. to 5 pm. Morning is the best time to get through, the line is often busy. -- ---- William J. Richard @ Charles River Data Systems 983 Concord St. Framingham, MA 01701 Tel: (617) 626-1112 uucp: ...!decvax!frog!wjr
sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) (05/25/85)
In article <405@mmintl.UUCP> jeffm@mmintl.UUCP (Jeffrey Miller) writes: >...Has anyone ever tried adding cherry >or vanilla syrup to Pepsi? The taste is not good. What am I going to >do now with my cherry and vanilla syrup? Certainly not change to Cherry >Coke, which tastes like cheap movie theater black cherry soda, not the >real thing... I have been having cherry Pepsi at the bowling lanes for 5 years. So have many of my friends. We all think it is quite good. -- - Sean Casey UUCP: {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - Department of Mathematics ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA - University of Kentucky
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (05/26/85)
> If memory serves me correctly, the change from sugar to more corn > sweeteners was made quite some time ago (without any public fanfare) > and is unrelated to the current "New Coke" taste change. All of the major soft drink makers shifted to corn syrup sweetener (fructose) over the last several years. Primarily because it's become cheaper than sucrose. Previously, they used sucrose syrup (essentialy molasses), derived from either sugar beets (southern U.S) or sugar cane (Hawaii and various tropical countries). In fact, fructrose has replaced sucrose in the majority of "manufactured foods" in the U.S. The primary exception is cake mixes and other dry mixes that require a granulated sweetener (fructrose doesn't granulate nicely -- just becomes sticky goo when you try to remove the water). As a result, cane (and probably beet) sugar is currently a glut on the world market. Here in Hawaii the sugar cane plantations are gradually closing down. If the U.S. government didn't have a "floor" price support for sugar (which is anyways too low, according to the sugar people), they'd already be out of business. In any case, the long-term outlook is for a major decrease in beet/cane sugar production -- except for 3rd world countries with extremely low wage rates. Note that (at least some) cans of new Coca-Cola include in their list of ingredients: "high fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose". If the market price of sucrose goes low enough (due to the oversupply), of course they'll gladly use it ... -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (05/26/85)
In a recent "Wall Street Journal" article regarding the COKE change, there were some interesting statements: 1) In totally blind taste tests, even dedicated drinkers of one brand or another were extremely inaccurate at identifying the type of cola from taste. In tests including Pepsi and Old/New Coke, the results bobbled right around chance, with only a vanishingly few people even correctly identifying what they had claimed was their "favorite." 2) The COKE change was largely based on tests that indicated that the real cola addicts, the ones who guzzle lots of them, prefer the sweeter taste. By moving their taste in that direction, the tests indicated that COKE would pick up an additional market share of this group. The increase to be expected would supposedly more than offset (by far) the lost revenues from "occasional" COKE drinkers (not the addicts) who would switch away from the New COKE. Therefore, it appears to have been simple economics at work. COKE probably realized that occasional drinkers of COKE would drop the product, but is operating on the assumption (apparently well grounded in tests) that the REAL cola guzzles would buy more COKE if it tasted more closely to what they liked--and that increased revenues would result. As for myself, I prefer the Old COKE, but since I'm only an occasional cola drinker I fell into the "out in the cold" section of the survey, apparently. --Lauren--
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (05/27/85)
my thanks to some one for the coke address. i'll send them a copy of the results from my poll, if i get a big enough total. -- ---------- "Is anything really real?" ...akgua!galbp!bing
shp@crystal.UUCP (05/28/85)
> In a recent "Wall Street Journal" article regarding the COKE change, > there were some interesting statements: > > 1) In totally blind taste tests, even dedicated drinkers of one > brand or another were extremely inaccurate at identifying the > type of cola from taste. In tests including Pepsi and Old/New Coke, > the results bobbled right around chance, with only a vanishingly > few people even correctly identifying what they had claimed was > their "favorite." > Okay, so how many people buy/drink the stuff "double-blind?" (think before you flame) Fine, if you really buy the stuff objetively, but who does? "Coke is Coke, a classic, etc... and now they've watered it...." Point is, it doesn't matter how it tastes, it's how the (potential) customers THINK it will taste, something which has been overlooked. =shp
njh@root44.UUCP (Nigel Horne) (05/30/85)
I think the 100th aniversary(sp?) of Coke is next year. Maybe there is
some commie plot underneath it all after all.
P.S. I prefer Pepsi, and we've (I think) got to wait at least another 6
months before the new stuff hits us.
--
--
Nigel Horne <njh@root44.UUCP>
Root Computers Ltd.
{deccra,edai,glasgow,hrc63,ist,kcl-cs,qmc-cs,rlvd,pmllab,stc,warwick,
ukc,unisoft}!root44!rootcl!njhdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (05/30/85)
You think cherry Coke has an interesting taste... On the Outer Banks of
North Carolina they have Okracoke!
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgaryjeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (05/31/85)
> In a recent "Wall Street Journal" article regarding the COKE change, > there were some interesting statements: > > 1) In totally blind taste tests, even dedicated drinkers of one > brand or another were extremely inaccurate at identifying the > type of cola from taste. In tests including Pepsi and Old/New Coke, > the results bobbled right around chance, with only a vanishingly > few people even correctly identifying what they had claimed was > their "favorite." I think that this is an important point. A lot of the popularity of the different colas may be the perceived differences. As such, with Coke making it public that they are going to change the formula, people may get turned off of the new stuff simply because it isn't the forever unchanging Coke that they have known all their lives. I think their marketing people are going to be shot at dawn after the new sales figures come out. It's easy for me to talk about perceived differences... I don't drink colas. Give me water any day..... -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
barmar@mit-eddie.UUCP (Barry Margolin) (05/31/85)
In article <1775@ut-ngp.UUCP> speegle@ut-ngp.UUCP (Charles R. Speegle) writes: >{} > I heard the reason COKE changed its flavor was because they >wanted to use corn syrup as a sweetener, instead of cane sugar(which >is more expensive). Now I can't get any of the old COKE to compare >the ingredients against the new COKE. So will someone in net.land >who has access to the blessed old COKE compare and let me know? No, they changed from cane sugar some time ago. > Here are the ingredients to the new (YUK!) COKE: > Carbonated Water, High Fructose corn syrup and/or sucrose, Caramel >color, Phosphoric acid, Natural flavors, Caffeine. > > by the way what does 'and/or' mean in this context. Do they >change ingredients according to their mood? More than likely it is according to availability and prices. -- Barry Margolin ARPA: barmar@MIT-Multics UUCP: ..!genrad!mit-eddie!barmar
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (05/31/85)
In article <1152@islenet.UUCP> bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) writes: > >As a result, cane (and probably beet) sugar is currently a glut on the world >market. Here in Hawaii the sugar cane plantations are gradually closing >down. If the U.S. government didn't have a "floor" price support for sugar >(which is anyways too low, according to the sugar people), they'd already >be out of business. Funny you should mention it - a local consumer affairs radio program was mentioning that while the U.S. wholesale price of sugar is around 21 cents a pound, the world price hovers at 2 to 2 1/2 cents, so we consumers pay about 10 times the going rate ... I guess it all depends on your point of view. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon
barb@pyuxa.UUCP (B E Nemeth) (06/03/85)
I don't know what all the fuss is about. I LIKE the new Coke. It definitely is a change for the better. The old Coke left such a crummy aftertaste. The new Coke tastes like Pepsi now, which I am completely satisfied with. Out with the old, on with the new.
waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (06/03/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH THE UNCOLA ***
Check out the Sunday 6/2/85 Bloom County strip.
-- Waltdavet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (06/04/85)
In article <464@crystal.UUCP> shp@crystal.UUCP writes: > Okay, so how many people buy/drink the stuff "double-blind?" ..... If the "Pepsi Challenge" has any validity, I took it and was a little suprized that the difference didn't jump out at me (I'm a Coke fan.) However, after a second taste I definitely liked one better. It was the Coke. As an aside: The sign-up sheet had you list your preference BEFORE the taste test and everyone but me and another had checked Pepsi. I find it hard to believe that only Pepsi drinkers were taking the test. And if not, why would off-the-street people who drink Coke feel so compelled to lie and say Pepsi? Do they picture being in a suprize TV commercial? Do they want to be nice and not offend the Pepsi girl running the test? I really don't understand this. Dave Trissel {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!davet
don@umd5.UUCP (06/07/85)
In article <1363@ecsvax.UUCP> dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) writes: >You think cherry Coke has an interesting taste... On the Outer Banks of >North Carolina they have *Okracoke!* OKRACOKE?!? Oh gawd.. GAG - CHOKE - "Yeeechhh!" -- --==---==---==-- "Space, the final frontier ..." What ?!!? ^ No more ?!? But it's a frontier of frontiers !! --==---==---==-- ___________ _____ ---- _____ \ //---- IDIC ----- _\______//_ ---- ---------- ARPA: umd5!don@maryland.ARPA BITNET: don%umd5@umd2 SPOKEN: Chris Sylvain UUCP: {seismo, rlgvax, allegra, brl-bmd, nrl-css}!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!don
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (06/08/85)
[let's move all this to net.misc] > In article <1152@islenet.UUCP> I wrote: > > > >... cane (and probably beet) sugar is currently a glut on the world > >market. Here in Hawaii the sugar cane plantations are gradually closing > >down. If the U.S. government didn't have a "floor" price support for sugar > >(which is anyways too low, according to the sugar people), they'd already > >be out of business. > In article <950@cae780.UUCP> (Brian Gordon): > Funny you should mention it - a local consumer affairs radio program was > mentioning that while the U.S. wholesale price of sugar is around 21 cents > a pound, the world price hovers at 2 to 2 1/2 cents, so we consumers pay > about 10 times the going rate ... I guess it all depends on your point of > view. The 2 to 3 cents is probably for bulk, unrefined sugar (molasses), F.O.B. various 3rd world countries. The $.21 a pound rate sounds like the price for refined (granular) sugar F.O.B. some warehouse in the U.S. Thus the real cost difference isn't as spectacular. It's still very real, however. I believe the "floor" price in the U.S. to producers is now $.12-.13. There is far less sympathy in Congress for sugar price supports than for the more popular (and more "essential") agricultural products. Expect the price supports to be done away with in the next few years. The reality is that U.S. producers with high land, labor and tax costs cannot compete with 3rd world countries -- even with a considerably higher degree of mechanization. It's happened with coffee, bananas, pineapple, and now sugar. The trend will probably continue ... especially for crops easily grown in the tropics. There's a bit of irony in this: the varieties of sugar (and pineapple, and ...) that are now producing high-yield crops in 3rd world countries have been -- in many cases -- developed through decades of research by U.S. growers. As are many of the harvesting methods. Technology transfer that turned out perhaps too successful. There may be a moral in that for the computer industry as well ... -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii
bob@islenet.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) (06/13/85)
Correction to my previous posting: > The 2 to 3 cents is probably for bulk, unrefined sugar (molasses), > F.O.B. various 3rd world countries. The $.21 a pound rate sounds > like the price for refined (granular) sugar F.O.B. some warehouse > in the U.S. Wrong. World sugar no. 11 futures run $.03-.04 per pound. Domestic sugar (no. 12) futures are just over $.21. That's all bulk, F.O.B. various places, though. The sugar import quotas do indeed keep sugar prices in the U.S. much higher than the world market. -- Bob Cunningham {dual|vortex|ihnp4}!islenet!bob Honolulu, Hawaii