Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site orca.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew
From: andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner)
Newsgroups: net.misc.coke
Subject: Re: "Classic" propaganda
Message-ID: <1624@orca.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Jul-85 14:25:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: orca.1624
Posted: Fri Jul 19 14:25:51 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Jul-85 03:15:46 EDT
References: <542@hou2g.UUCP> <42400005@gypsy.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 58

[This is a followup to article 42400005@gypsy.UUCP in net.consumers.]

> The reason that I am led to believe this is all part of a major marketing
> strategy is simple.  First, reading the net for the past few months, I have
> heard NOBODY favor the new Coke over the old Coke.  There were a few people
> who said they liked it in the beginning, but they sure disappeared fast.  By
> far, opinions have shown that the new Coke just doesn't cut it.

You assume that everyone with an opinion is contributing to the net.
Not so.  Those of us who like the new better than the old haven't been
motivated to keep karping about the change.  And there are a *lot* of
us: we're the old Pepsi drinkers, who think new Coke tastes much like
Pepsi.  When I have a choice now, I just choose randomly; the two are
now equivalent to my taste buds.

>                                                                  Keeping
> this fact in mind, consider the following.  When a company as big as
> Coca-Cola decides to put a new product on the market, regardless of what it
> is, they have to spend millions of dollars to correctly test and market it.
> Don't you think that Coke tested this product to see if people would like
> it?  Surely if they did test it and people would say they didn't like it just
> like the majority of people are saying now.  Why would they go ahead and put
> a product on the market that was not going to be approved by the general
> public?
> 
> The only possibility is that they were in such a hurry they did not take the
> time to test market it which would imply a big mistake (and the new Coke
> obviously was a big mistake).

Coke spent two years testing the new formula as part of testing
formulas for the new Diet Coke product.  They found (as did Pepsi in
well-publicized tests) that people off the street prefer a blander,
sweeter formula to old Coke.  (We Pepsi drinkers compare old Coke to
battery acid.)  A previous article remarked on the fact that Coke, like
oysters and cavier, is an acquired taste, which would account for this
sort of test result.

>                                Anyway, now Coke has you just where they want
> you - dying for their product and when they bring it back you will buy it by
> the barrel!  Look at all the free publicity they got.  They changed their
> product for a few months and few don't stop talking about for the next few
> years!  

Coke has done the right thing, which is to adopt a strategy to maximize
revenues to their stockholders.  They have brought a middle-of-the-road
product to market and are attracting casual cola drinkers, like the guy
standing in front of two vending machines or in a fast food joint.
They have returned old Coke to the market, so as to keep the die-hard
Coke aficionadoes, but it's not the flagship product so old Coke
drinkers have to work a little harder to find their poison than do we
casual drinkers.  And they have done all this in such a way as to
achieve major publicity.

Nothing they did was illegal, or even immoral.  It's a major coup, one
that I'll bet becomes a textbook example in business schools.

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay)  [ARPA]