Essay about Case Study on Coke versus Pepsi

The soft drink industry is one of the most highly profitable industries in the USA. Also, the competitive market is a very large market. Americans consumed about 53 gallons of soft drinks per person a year in 2000 by $ 60.3 billion!! Comparing with the market in 1990, since it was 47 gallons. In recent years, the market growth has slowed.

1. Using the current ratio, discuss what conclusions you can make about each company’s ability to pay current liabilities (debt).

     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.

Compare the economics of the concentrate business to that of the bottling business: Why is the profitability so different?

Porter’s (2008) competitive forces play a significant role in the success of the concentrate producers (CPs) in this industry. The forces are "threat of new entrants, rivalry among existing competitors, bargaining power of buyers, threat of substitute products or services, and bargaining power of suppliers" (p. 27). Concentrate producers usually produce carbonated soft drink (CSD). Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cora are known as two big CPs in the world.

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

Defining the industry: Both concentrate producers (CP) and bottlers are profitable. These two parts of the

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.

The company known as Coca-Cola today was started in September of 1919, but the first Coke brand was served as early as 1886. Since that time it has grown to be one of the most globally recognized brand names with a stock value of $167 billion. Coke’s plan has always been developed with the future in mind. Right away the company realized that it was more profitable to manufacture the concentrate used to make carbonated drinks than to bottle it. From that point on they saw the entire world, not simply the originating country, as their desired market. It seems only practical that the company should pursue this agenda until conquered then focus the effort on expanding into different product lines. This logical

big market share, such as Pepsi Cola, Mt.Dew, and so on. I like to drink Coke

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.

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 non-alcoholic beverages industry requires significant levels of infrastructure and technology, as well as large capital investments, in order to successfully compete in the market. As a result, it is considered as an industry with high barriers to entry that are difficult to overcome for new entrants. Additionally, the dominant position of the industry’s key players - Coca Cola and Pepsi - lower the threat of entry on the market as new entrants do not have the resources or capabilities to compete with these