Case Analysis - Cola Wars Continue: Coke and Pepsi in 2010

     PepsiCo. Incorporated and The Coca-Cola Company are the two largest and oldest archrivals in the carbonated soft drink (CSD) industry. Coca-Cola was invented and first marketed in 1886, followed by Pepsi Cola in 1898. Coca-Cola was named after the coca leaves and kola nuts John Pemberton used to make it, and Pepsi Cola after the beneficial effects its creator, Caleb Bradham, claimed it had on dyspepsia. The rivalry between the soda giants, also known as the "Cola Wars", began in the 1960’s when Coca-Cola's dominance was being increasingly challenged by Pepsi Cola. The competitive environment between the rivals was intense and well-publicized, forcing both companies to continuously establish and

The existing concentrate business is largely controlled by Coca-Cola Company (Coca-Cola) and PepsiCo (Pepsi), together claiming a combined 72% of the U.S. carbonated soft drink (CSD) market sales volume in 2009. Refer to Exhibit 1 for an illustration of the CSD industry value chain. For more than a century, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have maintained growth and large market shares through mastering five competitive forces, shown in Exhibit 2, that drive profitability and shape the industry structure.

Pepsi Co. and Coca Cola, both are very well known multinational companies. They are so famous that they perhaps don’t need any introduction since almost everyone knows basic info about these companies and their widely used products. Both of these companies have been dealing in the production of flavored waters, plain drinking water and soft drinks for decades now and have always been each other’s competitors in almost all the mainstream products they have been producing.

Due to globalization and this fast-growing business environment, firms struggle to earn above-average returns. They strive to establish a competitive advantage in order to earn higher returns. It is not enough for firms to establish a competitive advantage, they should also figure out ways to sustain it. There are several factors that can affect the competitiveness of a firm including customers, suppliers, existing rivals, new entrants, and substitutes. Firms should take into account these factors in order to sustain their competitive advantage. This paper analyzes Yoffie 's (2009) Cola War case, assesses concentrate producers, bottlers, and retailers in terms of Porter’s (2008) five forces of competition and provides recommendations to Coca-Cola.

and Pepsi Co dominate the industry with their strong brand name and great distribution channels. In addition, the soft-drink industry is fully saturated and growth is small. This makes it very difficult for new, unknown entrants to start competing against the existing firms. Another barrier to entry is the high fixed costs for warehouses, trucks, and labor, and economies of scale. New entrants cannot compete in price without economies of scale. These high capital requirements and market saturation make it extremely difficult for companies to enter the soft drink industry; therefore new entrants are not a strong competitive force.

An official financial analysis for a specific company needs two years of financial data from the company and from a competitor in the same industry. This financial analysis is between PepsiCo, Inc. and Coca-Cola. Pepsi and Coca-Cola dominate the beverage market worldwide. In addition to sodas, they also distribute a variety of water and energy drinks. Based on the analysis, the investor will be able to make a better investment choice.

For more than a century, Coca Cola and PepsiCo have been the major competitors within the soft drink market. By employing various advertising tactics, strategies such as blind taste tests, and reward initiatives for the consumer, they have grown to become oligopolistic rivals. In the soft-drink business, “The Coca-Cola Company” and “PepsiCo, Incorporated” hold most of the market shares in virtually every region of the world. They have brands that the consumers want, whether it be soft-drink brands or in PepsioCo’s case, snacks. With only one soft-drink market, the two competitors have no choice but to increase sales by stealing the other competitor’s clients. This led to the term, the “cola wars” which was first used

In carbonated soft drink market since 80s to till coca-cola and Pepsi are rival company and trying to dominating each other via advertising war through printing media, video advertising, campaigns, event and doing experiential marketing.

The Concentrate Producer industry can be classified as a Duopoly with Pepsi and Coke as the firms competing. The market share of the rest of the competition is too small to cause any upheaval of pricing or industry structure. Pepsi and Coke mainly over the years competed on differentiation and advertising rather than on pricing except for a period in the 1990’s. This prevented a huge dent in profits. Pricing wars are however a feature in their international expansion strategies.

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.

The case explains the economics of the soft drink industry. There activities that add value to consumer at nearly every stage of the value chain of the soft drink industry. The war is primarily fought between Coca-Cola and PepsiCo as market leaders in this industry; who combined have roughly a ninety percent market share in their industry. The impact of globalization on competition has allowed both of these major players to find new markets to tap which has allowed each continued growth potential.

Starbucks is a major reason why things have changed for Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co, they have emerged in the market with balancing their menu with gourmet, coffee beverages that offer sweet and sugary options for their customers. In 2016, the soft drink industry is in the middle of the growing policy debate in the United States regarding taxation of sugar-sweetened beverages. Therefore, it hasn’t been a great year for Coca-Cola, Pepsi Co, and Dr. Pepper Snapple due to the public’s concern on the health issues of sugary sodas. The health problems with the sugar content in soft drinks have increased political pressures, as well as slowed the growth of these giant beverage companies.

Porter 's Five Forces model (PFF) is a powerful instrument that can be utilized by companies to investigate its situation and identify its industry 's competitors. Analyzing industry will help any business in determining the competitive strength and weaknesses. By using PFF model, investors can gain valuable information regarding what the actual factors that affect the organization 's profitability (Evans & Neu 2008). This paper will analyze the Cola Wars case study based on the PFF model, and the primary components of soft drink industry. At the end of this paper, some recommendations will be given to Coca-Cola company to enhance its position in the market.

The industry of Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSD) is highly concentrated. The three major companies, Coca Cola, PepsiCo, and Cadbury Schweppes accounted in 1998 for more than 90% of market share by case volume –Exhibit 1-.

The global beverages industry is currently a low-growth market, with an expected compound annual growth rate of 5.7% between 2017 and 2025 (Grand View Research 2017). Additionally, the industry is quite saturated with firms that offer increasingly differentiated products. However, due to this low growth rate, companies have been engaging in price competition to gain competitive advantage and increase their market share. Nevertheless, Coca Cola is a dominant force in this market, controlling 40% of the industry, and is therefore at a low risk of losing its position.