Essay on 1. Why Is the Soft Drink Industry so Profitable?

industry covers services and platforms with a vast variety of focal markets. The portion of the

4) Product Differentiation: in order to communicate differentiation of their products to consumers, Big Three spent massively on advertising (advertising/sales ratio: 18.5%). In this regard, also brand extensions have to be considered, because in this way they’re reaching different markets (e.g., healthy-food lovers, with the introduction of fruit in cereals). In order to further differentiate from new entrants, the incumbents used to provide customers “In-Pack Premia” (only one at a time, in order not to be negatively affected one by the other).

Essentially, the soft-drink industry is largest beverage industry. It gross millions a year, and has different distribution channels. For example, these soft-drinks are sold in supermarket, Vending Machines, Gas stations, etc. The cost is incomparable to the amount of consumer we currently have in America. If Americans consumer on average 50 gallons in a year. The cost of 2.00 is not missed by the average person. With that said, there is a least likely chance that a person would attempt to duplicate the process at home. The soda making process is too time consuming, and inconvenient when a person can simply can go to the store to purchase. Consumers can either be very loyal to the brand or fickle. Influx in prices can make consumers switch very quickly. However, there are typically incentives associated with loyalty. There are giveaways and contest that entices the customers to keep purchasing. For example, Snapple does this with a real fact on every lid. I personally know people that will buy the product just to read the facts.

The three major participants in US market: concentrate producers, bottlers, and retail outlets. In the U.S. market, there are about 500 bottlers, and Concentrate producers are either owned or

Therefore this industry is a pretty good one to already be in, but would be very tough to try and break into. Since established firms do not have to worry about threat of entrants or substitution, they can focus on making their core business practices cost efficient and profitable. Although firms have to deal with high buyer and supplier power, every firm has to deal with these issues. Therefore this leaves only rivalry to compete on, which forces firms to stay sharp, observe the competition, and provide excellent service to the firm’s customers to generate profit.

Coca-Cola’s confidence in its domination over the soft drink industry eroded, and its advertising slogans began to recognize industry competition: “No Wonder Coke Tastes the Best”. While Coke’s slogans have always centered on the product, Pepsi’s advertisement emphasized the users of the product. Rather than targeting every market, Pepsi focused on the demographic environment. Pepsi foresaw the mass appeal of the youth generation for soft drinks and in 1961 divulged the successful slogan “Now, It’s Pepsi, for Those Who Think Young”. The campaign was such a success that Pepsi’s sales growth outperformed that of Coca-Cola.

Rivalry: The rivalry between Coca-Cola and Pepsi is extremely high; however, both companies continue to remain profitable. Prior to the 1980s, pricing wars negatively affected profitability for Coca-Cola and Pepsi. After Coca-Cola renegotiated its franchise bottling contract and both companies increased concentrate prices, the rivalry began to focus on differentiation and advertising strategies. Through creative advertising campaigns, such as the “Pepsi Challenge” where Pepsi ran blind taste tests to demonstrate that consumers

CDA, Coke or Pepsi offered funds for marketing and other purposes in exchange for shelf space.

The competition between Coke and Pepsi reached its peak to become a real war battle by the year 1980. This war had affected the industry profit for both concentrate producers and bottlers, while the effect of bottlers was much higher. After the successful “Pepsi Challenge” (blind taste tests: sales shot up) in 1974, Coke countered with rebates, retail price cuts and significant concentrate price increases. Pepsi followed of a 15% price increase of its own. During the early 1990’s bottlers of Coke and Pepsi employed low price strategies in the supermarket channel in order to compete with store brands. The concentrate producers were always able to increase their profits by increasing the concentrate price, while the bottlers, especially the

Customers have bargain power in the market since soft drink is an elastic product which is not necessary for daily life.

During the “Pepsi Challenge,” the person would prefer one product to the other. In the late 1990s, “Pepsi launched its most successful long-term strategy of the Cola Wars, Pepsi Stuff.” The Consumers were “invited” to “Drink Pepsi, Get Stuff” by using codes on cans and bottle caps to redeem points for free Pepsi lifestyle merchandise. The battle continues today “as they battle for brand supremacy…through advertisements, slogans, and celebrity endorsements.”

As we all go about our day, we rush to place to place. Around us there are things for sale, people everywhere trying to make money. As we are rushing around, we all tend to get thirsty as we have a thousand things going on. In America we have dozens of choices when it comes to soft drinks, although the two most widely known are Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Many are often stuck between choosing Coke or Pepsi; even though they are slightly different in appearance, taste, and price it makes a world of difference to the customer.

As the above table indicates concentrate business is highly profitable compared to the bottling business. The reasons for this are:

After reviewing the problem it is clear that our organization cannot sit back idly and hope for the best. Soda companies have continued to struggle with the political interference in the market. In the past few years, nations all over the world have passed taxes on soda beverages. France passed a tax on soda and sales dropped by 3%. In Mexico, sales dropped by 2% after a similar tax was passed. And though the drops in sales are alarming, it is not event the biggest threat. Ultimately, the goal of the politicians is to drastically decrease the consumption of soda drinks. Their attempt to pass these taxes is a power play to make soda beverages viewed as similar to cigarette companies. It is imperative that we do everything in our power to stop these taxes from occurring.

In an industry dominated by two heavyweight contenders, Coke and Pepsi, in fact, between 1996 and 2004 per capita consumption of carbonated soft drinks (CSD) remained between 52 to 54 gallons per year. Consumption grew by an average of 3% per year over the next three decades. Fueling this growth were the increasing availability of CSD, the introduction of diet and flavored varieties, and brand extensions. There is couple of reasons why the industry is so profitable such as market share, availability and diversity and brand name and world class marketing.