Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!amdcad!mike
From: mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker)
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Coke changes recipe
Message-ID: <1210@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 30-Apr-85 22:27:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.1210
Posted: Tue Apr 30 22:27:10 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-May-85 07:33:41 EDT
Organization: AMDCAD, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 33

What no flames about the Coke recipe change?

Rumor has it that the stuff tastes alot like Pepsi,
i.e. lots sweeter than Coke was. Why? A recent newspaper
article stated that Coke and Pepsi each owned 25% of
the cola market, and the other 50% of the cola drinkers
switch back and forth. Now I can understand introducing
Coke2 to compete for Pepsi's 25% share but not while
simultaneously dropping Coke which held 25% on it's own.

It sounds like a simple case of bad marketing.

I'm a Pepsi addict and really don't like the taste of Coke.
If the table were turned and I was about to have my freedom
of choice taken away by bad marketing, I'd be flaming like all
hell. SO WHERE ARE THE FLAMES?????

How about flaming Pepsi's nasty move in advertising,
capitalizing on the change. Cheap shot by Pepsi or more
Coke stupidity??

Here's some ammunition. ( Shoot it at me if you like ).
I heard that Coke made a good move years ago in getting
exclusive rights in McDonalds and a few other big chains,
and that if it were not for this they would not be #1.
The article had figures for sales broken down to fountain
sales, cans, and bottles. The assumption was made that the
majority of can and bottle sales were made in stores where
the buyer had freedom of choice. Pepsi was shown to have
significantly higher can and bottle sales. Does anyone out
there have these numbers, or did I dream it?

Mike @ AMDCAD