Cola Wars Continued – Coke vs. Pepsi in 2006
Reading the case, special attention should be paid to the underlying economics of the soft drink industry and its relationship to average profits, the relationship between the different stages of the value chain in the industry, the relationship between competitive interaction and industry profits, and the impact of globalization on industry structure.
While preparing the case, you should start by carefully characterizing the carbonated soft drink industry. To do this, clearly specify Coke and Pepsi’s market in the value chain of the industry, their main suppliers and main buyers.
Both concentrate producers (CP) and bottlers are profitable. These two parts of the industry are extremely interdependent, sharing costs in procurement, production, marketing and distribution. Many of their functions overlap; for instance, CPs do some bottling, and bottlers conduct many promotional activities. The industry is already vertically integrated to some extent. They also deal with similar suppliers and buyers. Entry into the industry would involve developing operations in either or both disciplines. Beverage substitutes would threaten both CPs and their associated bottlers. Because of operational overlap and similarities in their market environment, we can include both CPs and bottlers in our definition of the soft drink industry. In 1993, CPs earned 29% pretax profits on their sales, while bottlers earned 9% profits on their sales, for a total industry profitability of 14% (Exhibit 1). This industry as a whole generates positive economic profits.
Then answer the following questions.
1. Why is the soft drink industry so profitable?
Answer: Answer lies in viewing industry through the lens of competitive forces at play. While competition in the industry is fierce, there are relatively few players and other competitive forces are weak or have been reshaped by dominate industry players.
(i) Established Rivals: Low – Industry dominated by two companies and handful of niche players (i.e. Cadbury Schwepps / Doctor Pepper).
(ii) Customer Power: Low – Although there is choice, the customer base
outside of fountain drinks is dispersed and therefore have limited to no clout in negotiating lower prices.
(iii) New Entrants: Low – New entrants are deterred by high capital investments in bottling, distribution and enormous marketing budgets of existing players.
(iv) Substitute Offerings: High but actively reshaped to Low – However, Soft drink vendors reshape this force by improving availability and convenience of acquiring their products through vending machines, fountain sales and convenience channels. In recent years, soft drink vendors have diversified into new products that threaten to take share away from traditional sugar sodas, (diet soda, fruit juices, bottled water).
The threat of new entry for the industry is low, as considered by high costs and intense price competition, which make the industry’s profit margins very low. In the United States the market is concentrated, where the 50 top firms, including: Wal-mart, Kroger, Safeway
Threat of New Entrants – In the food industry, consumers’ attitudes are based on their brand loyalty and preference. Although the capital for the new entrants could be low, the brand loyalty is difficult to establish in the short-run; therefore, the threat of new entrants is low.
Pepsi needed a strong regional partner. Pepsi had been falling behind to Coke in Mexican market. However, changes in the regulatory environment had cut Coke’...
The purpose of this case study is to explore the implications for expanding the products offered by Mountain Man Brewing Company (MMBC) from one product, Mountain Man Lager, to adding a Light version of the beer. This paper will evaluate the following:
As stated in the case, “the market for energy drinks was growing; between 2010 and 2012, the market for energy drinks had grown by 40%. It was estimated to be $8.5 billion in the United States in 2013 [and] forecasts projected that figure to reach $13.5 billion by 2018” (pg 5). However, much of this market’s revenue -- 85% in fact -- is dominated by five major brands, while the remaining 15% is split between approximately 30 regional and national companies. (pg. 5). With this saturated market, it might not be best for Crescent Pure to enter as a completely new product to the industry, as there is the possibility that it will be squeezed out of the profit shares by more established brands -- especially if it is not properly secure in its identity. In addition, while the market for energy drinks appeared to be growing at an exponential rate compared to the market for sports drinks -- which increased only 9% in five years and would be at approximately 60% of the rate for energy drinks in 2017 (pg 6) -- the consumers appeared to be wary of partaking in the market for several reasons, which would potentially harm the reach of Crescent Pure. These concerns included rising news reports discussing the safety of energy drinks (pg. 5). Taking into consideration the data provided in the case that concerns reasonings of why consumers choose specific drinks over others, there
Coke continuously out-stands Pepsi, even though they share a very similar taste and colour, however Coke should not be the drink that receives all the love and attention for what it offers. Despite their similar soda colour, the drinks actually contain some different ingredients, which produce a different taste, and affect the body differently. Furthermore, the way the companies markets their drinks makes a huge contribution to how successful their products will become. The major element for success however stems from their impact on society and how the companies utilize their social power to evolve. The two major soda companies are constantly head to head with one another, yet it is what they do that sets them apart.
The soft drink industry in the United States is a highly profitably, but competitive market. In 2000 alone, consumers on average drank 53 gallons of soft drinks per person a year. There are three major companies that hold the majority of sales in the carbonated soft drink industry in the United States. They are the Coca Cola Company with 44.1% market share, followed by The Pepsi-Cola Company with 31.4% market share, and Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. with 14.7% market share. Each company respectively has numerous brands that it sales. These top brands account for almost 73% of soft drink sales in the United States. Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. owns two of the top ten brands sold. Colas are the dominant flavor in the U.S carbonated soft drink industry; however, popularity for flavored soft drinks has grown in recent years. The changing demographics of the U.S population have been an important factor in the growing popularity of these flavored soft drinks. The possible impact of this factor will be addressed later in the case.
Control of market share is the key issue in this case study. The situation is both Coke and Pepsi are trying to gain market share in this beverage market, which is valued at over $30 billion a year. Just how is this done in such a competitive market is the underlying issue. The facts are that each company is coming up with new products and ideas in order to increase their market share.
Soft drink industry is very profitable, more so for the concentrate producers than the bottler’s. This is surprising considering the fact that product sold is a commodity which can even be produced easily. There are several reasons for this, using the five forces analysis we can clearly demonstrate how each force contributes the profitability of the industry.
The beverage industry is highly competitive and presents many alternative products to satisfy a need from within. The principal areas of competition are in pricing, packaging, product innovation, the development of new products and flavours as well as promotional and marketing strategies. Companies can be grouped into two categories: global operations such as PepsiCo, Coca-Cola Company, Monster Beverage Corp. and Red Bull and regional operations such as Ro...
The CSD (carbonated soft drink) industry is one that is very competitive. A few firms dominate this industry, most notably Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola. This is due to substantial barriers to entry. Cadbury-Schweppes, producer of products such as 7up and Dr. Pepper is the third leading company in this industry. Due to the dominance of Coca Cola and Pepsi, Cadbury-Schweppes faces the daunting task of having to fight for market share and survive in this fiercely competitive industry. Using economic analysis for support, Cadbury-Schweppes will need to use its strengths in the non-cola categories to compete in this CSD industry.
Experimentation with the new market for carbonated beverages on the decline coke has done experiments in new flavors and healthier alternatives to try to stay competitive. As well as investing in “Keurig Green Mountain is a K-Cup maker but has a new Keurig Cold that can deliver Coca-Cola through the new system.” (Cooper, 2014)
There are a variety of beverages available to us today with a wide range of differences, some are flavored, carbonated, low calorie, energy boosters, and just plain water. When it comes down to carbonated drinks there are two major rivalry soda companies dominating the market. Coca Cola and Pepsi are two well know cola distributors with very credible history, but the question still remains one is America’s favorite? With the ongoing competition between Coca-Cola and Pepsi, each company is incorporating new strategies for marketing and advertising there brands. When comparing an advertisement from each of the companies, we will review how they appeal to consumers.
The purpose of this report is to compare financial reports from the two largest soft drink manufacturers in the world. The Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola have been the industry's leaders in their market since the early 1900's. I will use relevant figures to determine profitability, and break down key ratios in profitability, liquidity, and solvency. By breaking down financial statements, and converting them to percentages and ratios, comparisons can be made between competitors regardless of size.
This competitive advantage has been rendered sustainable as other players have found it difficult to catch up with the company's competitive strategy. In spite of this clear advantage, it was noted that the company faces some challenges being the world leader in soft drink distribution. The canning and bottling of the product which is done in many countries have now fallen into the hands of independent companies, thus it becomes hard for a given company to control the quality of the packaging