Coke Vs Pepsi Case Analysis

2171 Words5 Pages

1) Political – like tobacco companies in the late 20th century, food and beverage companies can now be targeted with lawsuits relating to health issues - PepsiCo fought tooth and nail against regulations, taxes and initiatives that aimed to reduce obesity - In 2001, Boston, MA mayor Thomas Menino banned junk food and soda from the public schools in the city, and in addition banned the selling of high sugar/high calorie drinks on city property - New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg tried to ban the sale of drinks with high sugar in containers bigger than 16 ounces, but this ban was opposed and halted, with the New York State Supreme Court judge ruling Bloomberg must go through city council and the board of health to institute the ban - The The industry is concentrated, with a few major companies owning the majority of brands. The Coke vs Pepsi rivalry itself is very intense. Market growth is not as high as it once was, and the market appears to be fragmenting because of obesity concerns and the need to develop more nutritious offerings 3) Strengths – PepsiCo owns 22 mega-brands that each topped $1 billion in sales globally in 2011, with Pepsi the leading mega-brand - PepsiCo has segmented their products into three segments: fun-for-you (Doritos), better-for-you (diet soda), and good-for-you (Quaker), meaning they able to better target consumers - PepsiCo has heavily invested in R&D - PepsiCo’s products were used by roughly 3 billion people each year Weaknesses – Nooyi’s strategy to grow the “Good-for-you” product category is seen by some as taking away from PepsiCo’s major brands - PepsiCo seen as disingenuous in their “health-conscious” efforts because of their fighting regulations and taxes aimed at reducing What are - keep the offerings the way they are: don’t change anything, this could be seen as a negative thing, as they aren’t really committing to either side. They are not greatly contributing to help lessen PepsiCo’s impact on obesity rates. This will likely gain the ire of the previously mentioned NGOs, as well as the government - focus more on the fun-for-you, major brands: ignore the other two segments, and focus on PepsiCo’s core products. The issue is that it may seem as though PepsiCo is going back on their word and Nooyi’s strategy. As well, PepsiCo might be seen as unethical for pushing their high-sugar, high-calorie drinks and junk food, while Americans and those of other nationalities are facing higher and higher levels of obesity. o This would be playing to PepsiCo’s current image, as mentioned, at PepsiCo’s “core they are a sugary, fatty cola company, and people like that" - focus more on the good-for-you: focus efforts on the good-for-you, healthy alternative products. This would be seen as shunning the products that PepsiCo was fundamentally built on. In addition, despite Nooyi’s best efforts, they haven’t been able to shake their poor health image. This alternative is risky, because it could be seen by consumer stakeholders as ignoring what they

More about Coke Vs Pepsi Case Analysis

Open Document