That means for the radius of 3.35, h = 355 / πr² h = 355 / π(3.35)² h = 10.07 cm. The cost of making the narrower can by Pepsi costs 658.84 rupees while the wider can cost 635.72 rupees. Therefore making these the dimensions of a can, which would have the least cost production of aluminum. The optimum can has a total cost of 635.41, making it 0.31 rupees cheaper than the wider Pepsi can which costs 635.72 rupees. Hence the most cost saving dimensions are 10.07 height and 3.35 cm radius. Step 5: Checking that the minimum cost value was correct using differential calculus. From the formula, we can see that the total cost of the can is a function consisting of only one variable (r). Total cost of making the can: 6πr² + …show more content…
The narrower can costs 658.84 rupees while the wider can cost 635.72 rupees. There is hence, a significant difference in cost between the narrower and wider …show more content…
But, even thought this had the least total surface area of a can of 355 ml, it wasn't the cheapest, due to different prices for the top and bottom area and a cheaper aluminum cost for the curved surface area. (277.9 + 369.6 = 647.5 rupees). Hence, I created the formula that could be used for an unknown variable radius ‘r’ in relation to the total cost of the can = 6πr² + 4πr (355 / πr²). After plotting this value on a graph, I saw that the minimum value of the radius was 3.35 and the height being 10.07 cm. This gave the cheapest cost of producing the can with aluminum. Also then, I wanted to double check if this method was correct, so I checked it using differential calculus and got the same result. Therefore, I can conclude that the minimum cost value (635.41) is in agreement with both methods, the differential calculus one and by plotting a graph of the total cost and finding the minimum value. To conclude, I would like to state my investigation is not thoroughly accurate and this could be because I did not take into consideration the factor that the Pepsi can is not an exact cylinder, as it has a light dome like structure joining the top and bottom. = 369.6
Analysis of the carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry shows that there are 2 important players i.e. Concentrate Producers and Bottlers. Focusing on the downstream of the supply chain it is to be pointed out that concentrate producers incure relatively low fixed costs with respect to production plant, staff, equipment and R&D as the concentrate is produced of a more than 100 years old formula and relatively cheap raw material (e.g. caffeine). Concentrate is shipped to bottlers which incure relatively high fixed cost with respect to plant, equipment and staff and which add carbonated water and high fructose corn syrup to the concentrate, bottle or can, package and ship it to the respective retailer. Besides that CDS hold a big stake in the direct delivery of concentrate to diverse fountain accounts like McDonalds, Burger King etc.
To determine if Lille Tissages, S.A. should lower the price to FF15.00/m or not we need to consider the Variable costs and the Contribution margin associated with Item 345.
Beverage giant Coca-Cola wants to get a little love for its iconic cola drink from the upscale consumer set, so its decided to create and test-market a sleek set of contoured aluminum bottles for its flagship Coke brand. Yes, we said aluminum bottles.
The can is sporting a blood red cloak that shows a striking resemblance to Dracula’s cloak. The cloak is partially opened in the front so the viewer can still see the Pepsi symbol clearly on the can. It also looks like it is being ruffled a little bit by the wind. There is white lettering written across the cloak that reads, ‘Cola-Coca’ in the Coca-Cola font type. Pepsi cleverly swapped the ‘C’ and the ‘L’ in Coca-Cola’s name to give the impression that the Pepsi can is wearing an imitation Coca-Cola costume. The background of the ad is a mountain ravine complete with dark shadows and sharp rocks, giving this ad a mood of dark and scary. The only text is, ‘We wish you a scary Halloween!’ which is thinly printed with white letters towards the top of the
Pepsi Cola Marketing Strategy PEPSI COLA For Pepsi Cola Ltd, marketing opportunity analysis is a continual and ongoing process. Pepsi have used the new product strategy to realise their ambitions to both defend their current market position, and reinstate their position as a product innovator. Pepsi wishes to create a clear cola that is 100% natural, low in sodium, caffeine-free, and still maintains the flavour of its original cola. They will call it Pepsi Au Naturel.
We know that it was going to be expensive to produce the product but we are confident that no matter the cost of production, our sales would greatly succeed the cost. The cost of producing a 5 oz. can was about 75 to 80 cents if they can produce 100,000 per month. If we were to produce 50,000 cans per month, that cost would rise by 5 to 10 cents per can. A 10 oz. can would cost about 25% more than a 5 oz. can would to produce. With those numbers, 100,000 5 oz. cans would cost us about $900,000-$960,000 per year to produce. 50,000 5 oz. cans would cost us $750,000. 100,000 10 oz. cans would cost us $1.125M-$1.2M a year...
Seven years ago Coca-Cola introduced mini cans. These mini cans are typically 7.5-8 ounces in size compared to the regular 12 ounce can. Since the mini can is almost half the size of the regular size you may think it is much healthier, however, this may not be the case. There are many different variables that determine whether this is true or not. The most astonishing aspect of mini cans is the fact that in the United States, where typically bigger is better, Coca-Cola has been winning with consumers by giving less and charging more.
Pepsi and Coca-Cola are both sodas, but they differ in terms of the satisfying flavors, the color and the graphic design that represents their two products, and then how Coke makes more money than Pepsi. With that said, you should have gotten the ideology of what we will go further in discussing about. Everybody loves these two very well-known sodas which can inject caffeine into you, which makes you all jittery in filling you up with an energetic energy. Alright, enough of this, let's go straight in-depth in talking about the two rivals throughout this paper of how Pepsi beats Coke in sales, but Coke is usually ahead when it comes to annual net income (Feigin) or how Pepsi is a sweeter brand compared to Coke, though Coke brand is more valuable
According to Tom Pirko, who runs a beverage consulting company in Los Angeles called Bev Mark, figured that there are two reasons Pepsi decided to bring out this Crystal Pepsi product (Pepsi Product ‘Crystal Pepsi’ is Clear, 1992). The first reason was due to competition with Coca-Cola whereby this new idea was intended to obtain a great deal of attention from the market. PepsiCo has been head-to-head positioning with Coca-Cola for many years and thus, they were considering differentiation positioning to expand their business.
For example: with the increase of the number of products produced, the cost of operating a machine also increase. Second we have batch level costs which is associated with batches; producing a multiple units of the same product that are processed together is called a batch. The third type is product level costs which arise from any activity in order to support the production of products. The fourth and the last type is facility level costs, this costs cannot be determined with a particular unit, product or batch; this costs are fixed with respect to batches, products and number of units produced. A single measure of volume is used for allocating costs to each service or product in traditional method for example: direct material cost, machine hours, direct labor cost and direct labor hours. A cost driver is an activity that generate costs, it can be generated by two types of costs the first is a particular machine 's running costs where the costs is driven by production volume as machine hours; the second is quality inspection costs where the cost is driven by the number of times the relevant activity occurs as the number of
According to Microeconomics, Price Elasticity of Demand is the responsiveness of the quantity demanded to a change in price, measured by dividing the percentage change in the quantity demanded of a product by the percentage change in the product’s price (Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015). Demand is considered elastic when the quantity demanded for a product increases or decreases in response to price change. Normally, sales increase with price drops and decrease when prices rise. Coca Cola products are considered to have an elastic demand because quantity demanded for its products often change when prices change. If the price of Coke goes from $1.50 a bottle to $2.00 and the price of a 20 oz. Pepsi remains at or around $1.50
Since neither of the products created the measurable sales and market share increase Pepsi needed, PepsiCo International (PCI) executives conceived of a plan to create a new tagline and re-brand all existing Pepsi products, signage, advertising materials and in-store display units. The executives envisioned a simultaneous, global campaign that would create stronger brand equity and resonance in the consumer consciousness.
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.
Price and advertising strategy: PepsiCo Overhauls Statergy. PepsiCo plans on saving 1.5 billion dollars in...
The case study "Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in the Twenty-First Century" focuses on describing Coke and Pepsi within the CSD industry by providing detailed statements about the companies’ accounts and strategies to increase their market share. Furthermore, the case also focuses on the Coke vs. Pepsi products which target similar groups of customers, and how these companies have had and still have great reputation and continue to take risks due to their high capital. This analysis of the Cola Wars Continue case study will focus mainly on the profitability of the industry by carefully considering and analyzing the below questions. Why is the soft drink industry so profitable? Compare the economics of the concentrate business to the bottling business: Why is the profitability so different?